Oral
Answers to
Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Cotonou Agreement

Douglas Carswell: How many countries have had aid suspended for corruption or failure to implement good governance under the terms of the Cotonou agreement in the last five years.

Justine Greening: Six countries have faced action: Guinea-Bissau, Zimbabwe, Fiji, Madagascar, Guinea and Burundi.

Douglas Carswell: Does UK overseas aid still include revenue support, and does the Secretary of State not agree that such direct Government-to-Government aid often inhibits good governance? Far from encouraging democracy, it actually encourages kleptocracy.

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that we have curbed general budget support, which has been reduced by nearly 90% since 2010. There is now one remaining programme of general budget support, which will finish shortly.
I disagree that it is wrong to work with Governments. In the end, one way in which we can tackle corruption is by strengthening public finance management and tax revenue authorities. We need to find a balance and provide earmarked support that actually achieves an impact.

Philip Hollobone: Every year, the Palestinian Authority gives £84 million to convicted terrorists serving time in Israeli jails, out of a general fund to which this country contributes part of its £72 million a year in aid to the Palestinians. Is that not corrupt practice? How is it an example of good governance? Will the Secretary of State consider following Canada’s example and ensuring that our aid goes to specific projects in the Palestinian territories?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend will be aware that the trust fund that we are part of is broadly supported by the international community. It is yet to become clear whether the new Canadian Government will change the country’s approach and go back to working in the same way as countries such as the UK. I should also point out that that support sits alongside direct support on the ground, and I can assure the House that no UK aid funding goes to the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

Patrick Grady: Will the Secretary of State recognise the important role that faith communities and civil society organisations play in holding Governments to account in developing countries? Will she assure the House that the Department for International Development remains committed to supporting civil society, capacity-building programmes and good governance programmes to help promote stability and tackle corruption?

Justine Greening: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Our work with civil society is not only important for the impact that it can have in driving accountability on the ground, as he mentions, but is one way in which we can tackle corruption. It is also vital in changing attitudes towards women and girls, a matter that I care about and that we must make progress on.

Projects for Young People

Paul Scully: What support her Department provides for projects which involve working with young people in the developing world.

Justine Greening: With Africa experiencing unprecedented growth in its young population, DFID has prioritised job creation for young people. That is good not only for young Africans but for Britain, because in the end we are tackling a root cause of migration.

Paul Scully: Will my right hon. Friend outline what the impact might be on the number of Syrians trying to reach Europe if aid spending in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and other neighbouring countries hosting Syrian refugees were cut?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend raises a pertinent question. If the refugee camps that we support in countries around Syria were not funded and were closed, do we think the people there would stay in Syria? They would not; they would almost certainly look to come to Europe. The irony is that parties such as the UK Independence party that want to cut back on aid have, in effect, a pro-migration policy.

Stephen Twigg: Today the Select Committee on International Development publishes its report on the crisis in Yemen, and one issue that we highlight is the impact on children and young people, including the fact that 47% of school-age children are not at school. Will the Secretary of State inform the House of what plans the Government have to use the forthcoming world humanitarian summit in Istanbul to focus on education in emergencies such as the situation in Yemen?

Justine Greening: The crises in Syria and Yemen shine a spotlight on an issue that I feel has been missed out  of humanitarian responses for too long—the fact that 37 million children around the world are out of school purely because they are in areas affected by either emergencies or conflict. The UK has led the way, with the “No Lost Generation” initiative, in working with countries to get children back into school. We would like to do the same in Yemen, but as the hon. Gentleman  will know, the situation in that country makes it extremely difficult to get even the most basic humanitarian support flowing.

Alan Mak: DFID funds the International Citizen Service, which helps young people from Britain to help their counterparts in developing countries. Will the Secretary of State join me in encouraging more young people from Havant and across Britain to get involved?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend has asked a really sensible question. More than 20,000 young people have now benefited from the International Citizen Service. It gives them a fantastic experience at a really important stage in their lives. In our manifesto we committed to tripling the numbers of young people able to benefit from it.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Do the Government recognise the important role that young people play in combating global poverty? Will the Secretary of State welcome the commitment in the Scottish National party manifesto to continue funding Scotland’s development education centres, and will she set out the steps that the UK Government are taking to promote global citizenship across the country?

Justine Greening: We recognise the Scottish Government’s work in Malawi, which is also very much the focus of UK work. On young people’s role, from my perspective, it is not simply that young people can be, and are, advocates for development but that they are many of the people on the ground delivering. If we look at the response to Ebola in Sierra Leone, young people in communities did the work to help those communities understand how to stay safe.

Mike Kane: For young people in countries most affected by the trauma of war and displacement there can be as few as one psychiatrist or mental health worker per 2 million people. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the Department has adequate resources to fulfil its commitment to young people’s mental health, as set out in the disability framework?

Justine Greening: We have brought in the disability framework over the past couple of years because we felt that we had not focused on that area in development in the way that we should have. Children’s mental health is incredibly important. We have put in more money through great agencies such as UNICEF to fund psychosocial support. One of the biggest problems we face is making sure that we have Arabic speakers with the right kinds of skills in the right quantity to deal with the scale of the challenge.

Tax Avoidance and Financial Transparency

Rushanara Ali: What recent assessment she has made of the effect of tax avoidance in developing countries involving institutions based in the Crown dependencies and British overseas territories on the economies of those developing countries.

Jo Cox: What recent assessment she has made of the effect of low levels of financial transparency in the Crown dependencies and British overseas territories on the economies of developing countries.

Desmond Swayne: Through our presidency of the G8 in 2013 and through the G20 we have led on assisting developing countries in strengthening their tax regimes, and tackling avoidance and evasion. UK overseas territories have agreed to furnish our tax and law enforcement agencies with company beneficial ownership information.

Rushanara Ali: I thank the Minister for that answer, but the world’s poorest countries are deprived of some $1 trillion every year because of money laundering and tax avoidance. Will he call on the British overseas territories to establish a public register of beneficial ownership ahead of next week’s anti-corruption summit in London?

Desmond Swayne: We are light years ahead of where we were, and indeed of any ambition expressed by previous Administrations. Full automatic exchange of taxpayer account information will be available from September this year, and company beneficial ownership information will be available to our tax authorities by June next year.

Jo Cox: I acknowledge the progress made by previous Governments and this one on this issue, but is it not time, in advance of the anti-corruption summit, to require overseas territories and Crown dependencies  to provide public registers of beneficial ownership?

Desmond Swayne: We have advanced a huge amount by agreement and leadership, not by having recourse to compulsion. The overseas territories are now well in advance of many of our major trading partners. It is better to proceed by agreement. Much of the information will be available through the initiative for automatic exchange of beneficial ownership registers, to which  33 countries have now signed up.

Eric Pickles: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to look very carefully at the purpose of this? Its purpose is not simply to deal with excessive avoidance and evasion schemes—they often mask deeply corrupt and criminal activities. What has been achieved is the ability for our law enforcement agencies to get in there and get that information, without tipping off the criminals we are seeking.

Desmond Swayne: I pay tribute to the National Crime Agency, and the unit within it paid for by DFID, for tracing that international corruption. My right hon. Friend is right. Huge amounts of revenue are being denied to the poorest countries in the world, and we have to do something about that.

Mark Field: The questions asked by the hon. Ladies are entirely legitimate, and the Minister has replied well. The added liquidity that comes as a result of moneys coming in—often from parts of the developing world—to places  such as the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies can lead to a range of project finance initiatives that benefit many people in the developing world. It is not as straightforward as suggesting that moneys in tax havens do not have a longer-term benefit, particularly in those parts of the world that the Department holds close to its heart.

Desmond Swayne: My right hon. Friend is right. The common reporting standard is vital, together with the automatic exchange of taxpayer account information. Precisely because of that, we have a pilot running in Ghana to draw developing countries into that arrangement.

Diane Abbott: The Minister will be aware that tax avoidance in developing countries costs them three times what they get in aid. Why will the Department not put pressure on Government colleagues to insist that offshore centres such as the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands set up registers of beneficial ownership that are open to the public?

Desmond Swayne: We are vastly in advance of the situation left by previous Administrations, and we are advancing by agreement. That information will be available if countries sign up to the initiative for the automatic exchange of beneficial ownership registers, and next month the United Kingdom will be the first country to publish that information.

Robin Walker: Another way that the UK can increase transparency and help to lead the world towards more open communication and higher revenues for developing countries is to support strongly the extractive industries transparency initiative. The previous Government signed us up to that, after too many years in which we had stood aside from it. Will the Minister confirm that we will be leading other parts of the British overseas territories, and signing up to  the EITI?

Desmond Swayne: Those territories certainly have extractives, and we are pushing that agenda. I regularly meet representatives of the extractives industry to drive forward this initiative.

Access to Energy: Africa

Henry Bellingham: What steps her Department is taking to improve access to energy for the poorest people in Africa.

Nick Hurd: Some 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa still do not have access to the electricity that we all take for granted, and progress towards the global goal of universal access by 2030 is too slow. We launched the Energy Africa campaign to accelerate the expansion of the household solar market and make it work for the poorest people in the world.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that solar power can make a real difference to economic development in places such as the Sahel? What is DFID  doing to assist the roll-out of off-grid solar power for countries coming out of conflict, such as South Sudan and Somalia?

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend has a profound understanding of the region, and I assure him that Somalia is one of the first countries to have signed an agreement with us on the Energy Africa campaign. I hope that many others will follow.

Albert Owen: In many African countries oil is still king, and with that comes a lot of corruption that prevents benefits from going to the poorest people in those countries. What is DFID doing to eliminate corruption, which undermines the projects, such as Energy Africa, that the Minister is talking about?

Nick Hurd: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. DFID has an extensive range of programmes to combat the culture of corruption, particularly in oil-producing states such as Nigeria, and an anti-corruption summit will soon be convened in London to address those specific issues.

Seema Kennedy: Will the Minister update the House on what role Britain can play in encouraging the private sector to invest in energy infrastructure in Africa

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and the whole thrust of the Energy Africa campaign is about accelerating a market. It is not about dumping a huge amount of public money on the table or a traditional aid programme; it is about accelerating a market in which we fully expect British entrepreneurs and investors to play a leading role.

Gregory Campbell: A fundamental prerequisite to accessing energy in the poorest nations in Africa is access to clean water. What assistance do the Government give to the many charitable institutions that have proven that clean water can be delivered to millions of people in a cost-effective way?

Nick Hurd: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the need to retain ambition in making it easier to access water, and I am delighted that the UK continues to play a leading role in fulfilling our manifesto commitment of connecting another 60 million people to water during this Parliament. As he rightly points out, non-governmental organisations are an important part of delivering on that commitment.

Fraud and Corruption

David Burrowes: What steps her Department is taking to tackle fraud and corruption in developing countries.

Justine Greening: Corruption is bad for development, it is bad for poor people and it is bad for business. All our country programmes have anti-corruption strategies. DFID funds units in the National Crime Agency that are dedicated to investigating the money laundering and bribery that affects developing countries.

David Burrowes: Corruption is also bad for taxpayers who have a natural concern if they see too much of their money going into the hands of corrupt Governments and other organisations, particularly in Africa. What are peer-to-peer lending and giving doing to tackle this issue?

Justine Greening: As my hon. Friend says, platforms are now emerging that allow charitable donations to be sent directly from an individual in the UK to, for example, a remote village in Uganda or an entrepreneur in Kenya seeking to raise money from the UK public directly. Strong regulation is key. DFID is now actively working with the industry to see how this approach can be made better.

Tom Brake: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways we can help developing countries to tackle fraud is to make sure there is no fraud and corruption in the UK? Will she look at whether the murderers of Mr Magnitsky have hidden away something like $20 million or $30 million in the UK? Is that something she would like to investigate?

Justine Greening: I am sure I will look further at the case the right hon. Gentleman mentions, but DFID funds and helped to establish the international corruption unit that is now part of the National Crime Agency. It is there specifically to ensure we are able to investigate cases of corruption and fraud that affect the UK system, as well as developing countries.

John Bercow: That was very, very dedicated of the Secretary of State. It was, if I may say so, an elastic—one might almost say a liberal and possibly a democratic—interpretation of the question on the Order Paper.

Matt Warman: One of the best

Justine Greening: I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to be a leader in global aid transparency. Taxpayers can already see on the web the Department’s projects in every country. Indeed, last month the Department was again rated as “very good” in Publish What You Fund’s aid transparency index.

Antoinette Sandbach: Somalia was recently

Justine Greening: I do. In fact, DFID has a series of controls to manage the inherent risks not just in Somalia but in many of the other countries where we work. We make extensive use of third-party monitoring so we can verify independently that every pound is spent effectively.

Palestinian Territories

Ian Austin: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of her Department’s spending in the Palestinian territories in achieving its aims.

Desmond Swayne: We are strengthening Palestinian institutions and supporting economic development. Last year, we supported 60,000 children in school and created thousands of jobs. Results are monitored quarterly.

Ian Austin: Just 0.2%—2 pence in every £10—of the £72 million the Department spends in the Palestinian territories goes to co-existence projects bringing Palestinians and Israelis together through the Conflict, Security and Stability fund. Why will the Department not support Middle East Entrepreneurs of Tomorrow—MEET—which does brilliant work with Israeli and Palestinian students, or, for example, Save a Child’s Heart? Co-existence and humanitarian work are the two pillars on which peace and a two-state solution will be built.

Desmond Swayne: We spent £349 million between 2011 and 2015, and last year we spent £72 million. There is, of course, a difficulty when managing any number of very small projects and initiatives. However, I appreciate the importance the hon. Gentleman draws to this particular need, and I am happy to accommodate him and discuss it with him.

Alan Duncan: May I urge my right hon. Friend to not just maintain our spending on the Palestinian Authority but even increase it? Do we not have an obligation to make a stand against the moral outrage of the continuing annexation, by the Israelis, of Palestinian land?

Desmond Swayne: The main effort of our interventions in the Palestinian territories remains to deliver an independent and stable Palestinian state. I cannot give any indication of finance now; an announcement will be made in due course.

Topical Questions

Andrea Jenkyns: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Justine Greening: Three weeks ago at the World Bank spring meetings in Washington, we discussed the central role that development plays in tackling the root causes of migration, terrorism and conflict. I should inform the House that no representative I met thought it would be a good idea for the UK to leave Europe. Last week in Kenya, I saw at first hand how our support for refugees and for creating livelihoods for young people is not only the right thing to do for them, but firmly in our national interest, allowing people to stay in their home region.

Andrea Jenkyns: On my recent visit to India, I saw  the fantastic work being done by the World Health Organisation, UNICEF and others to vaccinate children  against polio, which has now been eradicated in India. What is the Government’s assessment of the shortfalls of the global vaccine action plan as set out in the 2015 assessment of the strategic advisory group?

Justine Greening: We have seen the group’s report, and we think it addresses some key issues and is realistic. It is also worth pointing out that the number of cases of polio in the world this year is down to a handful. We are within touching distance of seeing this terrible disease eradicated from our planet for the first time in history.

Diane Abbott: Last month, I visited Somaliland in the horn of Africa to see for myself some of the effects of the drought that has swept southern and eastern Africa and some of the 36 million people facing hunger. I met desperate people who need food, water and shelter. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that this drought does not become a famine?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady raises an important issue, which underlines the fragility of many countries in Africa that, while on the path to development, face challenges such as El Niño. Specifically in Somalia, we have made additional funding available to tackle this humanitarian crisis to try to do precisely what the hon. Lady suggests, which is so important.

David Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree with VSO that the generous amount of money that the British people give in overseas aid has transformed the lives of children throughout the world as well as, in particular, in developing countries

Justine Greening: Yes, I do. We have supported 11 million children into school over the last five years and distributed 47 million bed nets, which has seen malaria deaths fall by two thirds over the last 15 years. We are helping 60 million people to get access to better water and sanitation. VSO, of course, is delivering a fantastic project for the International Citizen Service, too.

Rupa Huq: People are fleeing war zones in developing countries across the globe. Will the Government now heed Lord Dubs and Sir Erich Reich, two prominent Kindertransport children, and think again about providing sanctuary for unaccompanied child refugees from Syria

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady will be aware of all the work that DFID has done in Syria and in the region, and it has been particularly focused on supporting children affected by that crisis. We should be proud of the fact that no member state has done more financially to support refugees arriving in Europe. As she will be aware, we are looking at how to continue to work harder on ensuring that we support children who are in Europe and unaccompanied.

David Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that her commendable efforts to improve sexual equality across the world would be made easier if organisations such as the Blackburn Muslim Association were not putting out

Justine Greening: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. I had a look at its website last night and, frankly, the view expressed on it is disgraceful and unacceptable. It has no place in Britain, and it is contrary to our British values. I think the Blackburn Muslim Association should very clearly and publicly withdraw those comments.

Alistair Carmichael: The Secretary of State may be aware of the brutal murder of LGBT activist Xulhaz Mannanw in Bangladesh last month. He was hacked to death by Islamist activists. Is she aware that Amnesty International says that his was just one of four such murders last month. Will she tell me what we are doing to help the Government of Bangladesh to offer more protection to the LGBT community there?

Justine Greening: The right hon. Gentleman has been as concerned as I have been about some of the terrible murders that have taken place in Bangladesh. It is important that we continue to work with the Bangladeshi Government to ensure that there is freedom of speech combined with the rule of law, and that the perpetrators of the murders are brought to justice.

Alec Shelbrooke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our GDP would fall by more than 0.7% if we withdrew our investment from various stability projects around the world

Justine Greening: Absolutely. We know that conflict costs tens of billions of pounds of global GDP every year. We also know that simply enabling women to be more economically empowered would add tens of billions to global GDP every year, so what we are doing is not just good for the poorest people on our planet; it is in our national interest as well.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Martyn Day: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 May.

David Cameron: I know that the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating Leicester City on winning the premier league title. Having been 5,000:1 outsiders at the start of the season, they have shown superb ability, incredible resilience and a great team ethic.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Martyn Day: May I begin by associating myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about Leicester City? That result is something on which he and I can agree.
On Monday, the Foreign Secretary said:
“There is a need for a new initiative in the Syria dialogue to keep it alive.”
Will the Prime Minister withdraw his airstrikes, which have done nothing to bring about peace, and will he redouble his efforts to secure a political resolution to the war through a new dialogue, as recommended by his own Foreign Secretary?

David Cameron: I think that we should do both. I think that we should continue to hit Daesh terrorists because they threaten our country, but at the same time do everything that we can to support dialogue between the opposition and the Syrian regime, which is what the progress has been about. We will continue to take both those steps.

Karl McCartney: My right hon. Friend will be aware that 33 Conservative candidates will stand in the Lincoln city elections tomorrow, along with our county’s police and crime commissioner candidate—and Labour will lose some seats!

David Cameron: I certainly wish my hon. Friend’s candidates well. If people want to have well-run services at a good cost and keep taxes down, it is right for them to vote Conservative throughout the country.
My hon. Friend’s point about Hamas is important. We should be clear about who they are. They are a terrorist group who believe in killing Jews, and that is why whatever the Leader of the Opposition says about combating anti-Semitism in the Labour party will mean nothing until he withdraws the remark that they were his friends. He needs to do that, and he should do it today.

Jeremy Corbyn: I join the Prime Minister in congratulating Leicester City on their amazing achievement. I hope that what he has said is not an indication that he is going to support another football team, rather than sticking with the two that he has already.
Later today, commemorations begin for Holocaust Memorial Day in Israel. I hope that it is agreed in all parts of the House that we should send our best wishes to those who are commemorating the occasion, and also send a very clear statement that anti-Semitism has no place in our society whatsoever and we all have a duty to oppose it.
Tomorrow people will go to the polls to vote in council elections in England. Nine of the 10 most deprived councils are set to see cuts higher than the national average, and eight face cuts more than three times the national average. That means less money for  youth services, for adult social care, and for those in the areas with the greatest need. The Prime Minister used to say, “We are all in it together.” What happened to that?

David Cameron: First, I join the right hon. Gentleman in saying that we should always support Holocaust Memorial Day, whether here in the UK, where we have a number of commemorations, or in Israel. But I am going to press him on this point, because he said
“it will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking… I’ve also invited friends from Hamas to come and speak as well.”
Hamas and Hezbollah believe in killing Jews, not just in Israel but around the world. Will he take this opportunity? If he wants to clear up the problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour party, now is a good time to start. Withdraw the remark that they are your friends!

Jeremy Corbyn: I have made it very clear that Labour is an anti-racist party and that there is no place for anti-Semitism within it. We have suspended any members who have undertaken any anti-Semitic activities or  work or made such statements, and have established an inquiry led by Shami Chakrabarti. The point the Prime Minister makes relates to a discussion I was hosting to try to promote a peace process. It was not an approval of those organisations. I absolutely do not approve of those organisations.
The reality is that vulnerable people are being abandoned in this country. The Prime Minister has said that social care and support for the elderly were a priority for him. If that is the case, why has he cut £4.5 billion since 2010 from the adult social care budget, leaving 300,000 older people without the care and support they need to live in dignity?

David Cameron: First, we are putting more money into social care and allowing councils to raise council tax to put that money in.
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman will have to do this one more time. He referred to Hamas and Hezbollah as his friends. He needs to withdraw that remark. Let me give him another chance: are they your friends or are they not? Those organisations, in their constitutions, believe in persecuting and killing Jews. They are anti-Semitic and racist organisations, and he must stand up and say they are not his friends.

Jeremy Corbyn: Obviously, anyone who commits racist attacks or who is anti-Semitic is not a friend of mine. I am very clear about that. I invite the Prime Minister to think for a moment about the conduct of his party and his candidate in the London mayoral elections and their systematic smearing of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), our candidate for Mayor. I wish him well, and I invite the Prime Minister to undertake to ensure that the Conservative party in London desists from its present activities in smearing my friend.
Last week, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s “Destitution” report found that 1.25 million people in Britain were unable to afford the essentials needed to eat and stay warm, clean and dry. The number of people using food banks rose again last year. The Prime  Minister usually lectures us about a stronger economy. When will that stronger economy mean that fewer people need to use food banks?

David Cameron: What the stronger economy means is that there are over 2 million more people are in work than when I became Prime Minister, and that someone can now earn £11,000 before paying tax; and we have introduced a national living wage—something never done in 13 years of a Labour Government.
I completely reject the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about Labour’s candidate for the London mayoralty. As I have said before at the Dispatch Box, we are not responsible for everything someone says when they share are platform with us, and we cannot control everyone who appears in a picture, but there is a pattern of behaviour with the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). He shared a platform with Sajil Shahid, the man who trained the ringleader of the 7/7 attacks and accused the United States of bringing 9/11 on itself. He shared a platform with an extremist who called for Jews to be drowned in the ocean. When this was put to the right hon. Member for Tooting, he described it as mere “flowery” language. If he wants to know why he has a problem with anti-Semitism, let me tell him: it is because his candidates share platform after platform with extremists and anti-Semites and then excuse their words. One more time: say you withdraw the remark about Hamas and Hezbollah being your friends!

Jeremy Corbyn: Last week, the Prime Minister tried, as he often does, to smear my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting for his association with Sulaiman Ghani. It turns out that Mr Ghani is actually an active Conservative supporter who has shared platforms with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). The Prime Minister should also reflect on the words of Lord Lansley some years ago when he said that racism was “endemic” within his party. We have set up a commission of inquiry; I suggest that the Prime Minister might think about doing the same thing.
Lord Kerslake, the former Government housing chief, has said that the Housing and Planning Bill
“effectively removes the security that people need”,
and that it is “fundamentally wrong”. Homelessness is up by a third since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, and it is rising again this year. A voter, Malcolm, wrote to me this week to say that he and his family will lose their home if the Government’s Housing Bill goes through. Why can the Prime Minister not follow the example set by the Welsh Labour Government by placing a legal duty and responsibility on councils help people during a housing crisis? Why can’t he do that?

David Cameron: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what this Government have done, not in Wales where Labour is in control but here in England: we have built twice as much council housing in the last six years as Labour did in the previous 13.
But I am not going to let the issue about the right hon. Member for Tooting rest. The Leader of the Opposition raised the case of Suleiman Ghani, whom the right hon. Member for Tooting shared a platform with nine times. This is a man who says that it is wrong to stop people going to fight in—[Interruption.] No, as  long as it takes. Do you want to know the views of a person that your leader has just quoted? He has described women as—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) might be interested in this. He described women as “subservient” to men. He said that homosexuality was an “unnatural” act. He stood on a platform with people who wanted an Islamic state. That is why the Leader of the Opposition’s attempts to deal with anti-Semitism are utterly condemned to failure. He will not even condemn people who sit on platforms with people like that.

Jeremy Corbyn: I did point out to the Prime Minister—I was trying to help him—that the gentleman concerned is actually a Conservative. Maybe he would care to think about that. He might also consider that Shazia Awan, a former Conservative parliamentary candidate, has said this of the Tory mayoral campaign:
“I’ll be voting Labour. A lifelong Tory voter and ex-candidate, I’m ashamed at the repulsive campaign of hate”.
Homelessness has been reduced by 67% in Wales since the new regulations came in. Why can the Prime Minister not do the same in this country? Inequality is getting worse. Education ought to be a route out of poverty, but new figures show that the number of people participating in a level 2 adult education course in the first half of this year fell by a fifth compared with last year. How can we tackle inequality when the Prime Minister and his Government are taking away the opportunities for people to find a pathway out of poverty?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman  talks about inequality, but inequality has gone down under this Government. There are 764,000 fewer workless households and 449,000 fewer children living in workless households. Why? Because we have a growing economy, a living wage, more jobs and people paying less tax. That is what is happening under this Government. Once again I say to him that we are investing in schools to give people opportunities and in schemes to allow people to own homes to give them opportunities. He opposes all those things because the truth is this: he may be a friend of the terrorist group Hamas but he is an enemy of aspiration.

Jeremy Corbyn: Politics is about choices. The Prime Minister cut—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Let me gently say to the assiduous but slightly overenthusiastic Government Whip, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), that his role is to be seen and not heard—no further noise, please, from the hon. Gentleman today or from his sidekick to his right. A cabal of Whips will not shout people down in this Chamber. Be quiet or leave; it is very simple.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister’s Government cut income tax for the richest, cut capital gains tax, and cut corporation tax again and again. At every turn, they make the wrong choices. Tomorrow, people can make their own choices about the crisis of social care, the housing crisis in this country, the unprecedented cuts to local councils in the areas of greatest need, and the  cuts to further education, taking opportunities away from young people. The choices have been made. The  Government cut taxes for the rich; we want proper taxation to ensure that there are decent services for  the rest.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is right that tomorrow is about choices. People can choose a party that is on the side of security for hard-working people and that wants to ensure that there are more jobs, better pay, lower taxes, good schools for their children, and a seven-day NHS that is there for them when they need it. Their other choice is to back a party that puts extremists over working people and that is utterly incapable of providing the leadership that their local council or our country needs.

Mary Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to create a northern powerhouse that can produce innovation and prosperity, investment is needed in vital transport links in our northern cities? Of particular concern to my constituents is the junction of the A34 and the A560 at Gatley. Will the Prime Minister and his Ministers meet me to discuss how we can keep traffic moving into and out of the great city of Manchester and alleviate congestion in my constituency of Cheadle

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. We established Transport for the North to look exactly at schemes such as the one that she proposes, so that we can speak with one voice. We are also investing £13 billion in transport across the north over this Parliament. Planning for the next road investment strategy for after 2020 is also now under way, so it is absolutely the right time for her to make that point.

Angus Robertson: Last week, the Prime Minister took issue when I mentioned unaccompanied Syrian refugee children in Europe and the Kindertransports of the 1930s. Since then, he has been written to by Sir Erich Reich, the chairman of the Association of Jewish Refugees’ Kindertransport special interest group, who said:
“The echoes of the past haunt many of my fellow Kinder and I whose fate similarly rested with members of the British parliament. I feel it is incumbent on us to once again demonstrate our compassion and human-kindness to provide sanctuary to those in need.”
Why has it taken so long, and the threat of a parliamentary defeat, for the Prime Minister to begin changing his mind?

David Cameron: First, let me pay tribute to the gentleman mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Let us be clear that no country has done more than Britain to help when it comes to Syrian refugees. No country has raised more money, and only the United States has spent more money. I want us to proceed with as much support from across the House as we can. I think it is right to stick to the principle that we should not be encouraging people to make this dangerous journey. I think it is right to stick to the idea that we keep investing in the refugee camps and in neighbouring countries. I also think it is right not to take part in the EU relocation and resettlement schemes, which have been, in my view, a failure.
We are already taking child migrants in Europe with a direct family connection to the UK, and we will speed that up. I am also talking to Save the Children to see what more we can do, particularly with children who came here before the EU-Turkey deal was signed, because I say again that I do not want us to take steps that will encourage people to make this dangerous journey. Otherwise, our actions, however well-meaning they will be, could result in more people dying, rather than more people getting a good life.

Angus Robertson: Last week, I accused the Prime Minister of walking by on the other side when he stoutly defended his then policy, opposing further help for unaccompanied refugee children in Europe. If what we are hearing now is the beginnings of a U-turn, I very much welcome it, as I am sure do Members from all parts of the House. May I encourage him to think more about what can be done, given that the Kindertransport helped 10,000 children from Europe? Finally, may I ask him to take the opportunity to thank Lord Alf Dubs and all campaigners who have worked so hard for the UK to live up to the example and the spirit of the Kindertransport?

David Cameron: I certainly think that all those people deserve recognition for the work they have done to put this issue so squarely on the agenda, but let me just say again that I do reject the comparison with the Kindertransport. I do so for this reason: I would argue that what we are doing primarily—taking children from the region, taking vulnerable people from the camps, going to the neighbouring countries and taking people into our country, housing them, clothing them, feeding them and making sure they can have a good life here—is like the Kindertransport.
I think that to say that the Kindertransport is like taking children today from France, Germany or Italy—safe countries that are democracies—is an insult to those countries. But, as I have said, because of the steps we are taking, it will not be necessary to send the Dubs amendment back to the other place; the amendment does not now mention a number of people. We are going to go around the local authorities and see what more we can do, but let us stick to the principle that we should not be taking new arrivals to Europe.

Nigel Evans: The Department of Health is looking to introduce a cell-free DNA test for pregnant women in order to reduce the number of miscarriages, but this will have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of abortions for those with Down’s syndrome. I know that nobody in this House cares more about the protection and safety of those with special needs, so will the Prime Minister meet me and representatives of the East Lancashire Down’s Syndrome Support Group so that we can look at ways of protecting those with Down’s syndrome and ensuring that they will not be simply screened out

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. A local group of Down’s syndrome parents came to my constituency surgery on Friday and made all these arguments to me. As a constituency MP, I am taking this up with the Department of Health to make sure that all the right processes are followed. There are moral and ethical issues that need to be  considered in these cases, but on the other hand we also have to respect the view that women want to have screening and testing about the health of their children, and we should be in favour of maximum transparency, on the basis that this is optional rather than mandatory, but it is part of routine care. So the Health Secretary is going to have to find a way through this, but, above all, we must make sure we go about it in the right way.

Alex Cunningham: Nifco UK manufactures components for Ford and Nissan cars and employs hundreds of people, including many from my constituency. I am sure the Prime Minister knows of the need for us all to get behind our manufacturing industry, but does he agree with Nifco’s managing director, Mike Matthews, that it would be “business suicide” for the UK to leave the European Union

David Cameron: I think we should listen to all the business voices, particularly those in manufacturing, so many of whom say that we are better off in a reformed European Union. We get an enormous amount of investment, particularly from Japanese motor industries. I will be welcoming the Japanese Prime Minister here to the UK tomorrow, when I am sure this will be on the agenda.

Peace in Europe: Assessment of EU’s Contribution

Julian Lewis: What recent assessment he has made of the extent of the contribution of the EU to the maintenance of peace in Europe.

David Cameron: NATO is the cornerstone of Britain’s defence, but our place in the EU is, in my view, a vital part of protecting our national security. I would argue that it helps in two ways: first, by ensuring that issues are settled by dialogue; and secondly, by helping to provide assistance in particular circumstances—for example, the Balkans.

Julian Lewis: I entirely agree with the Prime Minister’s remarks about NATO, but does he accept that although dictatorships often attack democracies or other dictatorships, democracies seldom, if ever, go to war with each other? If an aim of the EU is, as we are constantly told, to prevent conflict between its own members, as in world war one and world war two, is it not heading in precisely the wrong direction by trying to create an unelected, supranational Government of Europe that is accountable to nobody?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend has long-standing and passionate views on this issue. Let me make a couple of points in response. First, we should not forget that, until very recently, some countries now in the European Union were not democracies, but forms of dictatorship. Secondly, those countries that have worked towards membership of the EU have had to put in place all sorts of democratic and other norms to help them on their way. Finally, we have had an unparalleled period of peace and prosperity in Europe. My argument is that whether we attribute all of that to NATO or some of that to the EU, why would we want to put  it at risk?

Engagements

Rachael Maskell: The findings of the NHS England report on the sudden closure of Bootham Park mental health hospital in York have confirmed that the relationships between the NHS bodies, as defined under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, are dysfunctional and have failed patient safety. A Healthwatch report showed that harm has occurred because life has been lost. Will the Prime Minister now accept that, because of the serious risk that has been created, the 2012 Act has to change in line with NHS England’s recommendations

David Cameron: I will look very carefully at what the hon. Lady has said. My understanding is that she called for action on an outdated and dangerous facility back in July last year, and that is exactly what happened. I am pleased that action was taken. Bootham Park was not fit for purpose. The Care Quality Commission identified serious and life-threatening issues on patient safety, which were not put right. As a result, there was a decision to close and then subsequently reopen the facility after changes. Of course there will be incidences of poor practice; what matters is whether we intervene fast enough and put them right. In this case, I will  look again at what she says, but it does look as if action was taken.

Edward Leigh: The Christian Yazidi and Shi’a children in Syria are suffering from genocide carried out by Daesh, and we should recognise it as such. May I urge the Prime Minister to do more to replicate the Kindertransport of the 1930s? That is what we are doing in taking children directly from the camps in Syria. If we were to take 16-year-olds from a safe environment in Europe, we would simply be causing more misery and encouraging the people traffickers.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend has asked me two questions. One is whether there is more we can do to label what has happened as genocide. That has always been done under a legal definition, but there is a very strong case here for saying that it is genocide, and I hope that it will be portrayed and spoken of as such.
On the issue of the Kindertransport, I agree with my hon. Friend. We have an enormous amount of which we can be proud—the money that we have put into the camps, and the fact that we raised more in London on one day than any humanitarian conference has ever raised in the history of the world. We have a very strong record. We will do more for children who were already registered in Europe before the EU-Turkey deal, but the principle that we should try to cling to is that we should not do anything that encourages people to make the perilous journey. That has been the cornerstone of our policy and it should remain the case.

Caroline Lucas: For the benefit of the House and for 10 and 11-year-olds up and down the country, will the Prime Minister explain what the past progressive tense is? Will he differentiate between a subordinating conjunctive and a co-ordinating conjunctive? Finally, will he set out his definition of a modal verb

David Cameron: The whole point of these changes is to make sure that our children are better educated than we are. That is why I am absolutely delighted that my three children at state schools are going off to do these tests.

Martin Vickers: Three years ago—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I want to hear Mr Vickers’s inquiry.

Martin Vickers: Three years ago, five members of the Cockburn family from County Durham were killed in a tragic accident on the A18 in my constituency. At the recently concluded inquest, the coroner said that he had no confidence that the proposed work by the highway authority would remedy the situation. Obviously the council wants to do all it can, and has committed to carry out the work in full. However, resources are very limited. Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to an application from the council for additional resources to avoid a future tragedy?

David Cameron: I will certainly have a very close look at the issue that my hon. Friend raises. I know the A18 and its importance for his constituency, and I will look at what the Highways Agency has made available and at whether there is real evidence that more could be done to make the road safe.

Patrick Grady: Eritrea was described as the North Korea of Africa at the recent inaugural all-party group meeting, which heard reports of Government-enforced indefinite conscription. The UK FCO advises against travel to areas within 25 km of the Ethiopian border. Will the Prime Minister personally and urgently review Home Office guidance that says that it is safe to transport asylum seekers back to Eritrea?

David Cameron: I will certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman says. We know that Eritrea is a deeply undemocratic and autocratic country that has done appalling things to its people and that is one reason why so many of those seeking to cross the Mediterranean, normally through the Libyan route, have come from that country. When I had the opportunity to meet the Eritrean leadership, as I did at the conference in Valletta in Malta, I made those points very strongly.

David Amess: Four years ago, I asked my right hon. Friend on behalf of my mother, Maud, whether the EU referendum vote could be brought forward because of her age. She was then 100. She now wishes to know whether she needs to set a world record for longevity before the Chilcot report is published.

David Cameron: I think that I can reassure Maud that this summer she will have a double opportunity to deal with these things, with a referendum on 23 June and the Chilcot report, which, I am sure, will come not too much longer after that.

John Bercow: I rather imagine that she will then want a Backbench Business Committee debate on the matter.

Stephen Kinnock: Tata Steel has indicated that it wishes to complete the sale of its UK assets by the middle of June and that it wants a preferred bidder in place by the end of this month. Does the Prime Minister really think that that is a realistic timeframe and that there will be a credible process of due diligence? What steps is the Prime Minister taking to ensure that Tata Steel delivers on its promise to be a responsible seller?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about this. The positive news is that the deadline yesterday was met by a number of serious inquiries of interest into buying all of Tata, and that is good news. Obviously, we now need to work intensively with Tata and those buyers to get that list down to those who seriously intend to bid for the business. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is a very short timetable. He asks what we are doing, and what we are doing is talking intensively with Tata to ensure that it does everything it can to make sure that this is a serious sales process.

Eric Pickles: The Prime Minister just made a very important announcement about refugee children, but obviously time is of the essence because of the peculiar vulnerability of children without the guidance and protection of their families. Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House how quickly he expects to have those arrangements in place?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has spoken powerfully and passionately about this issue. I do not see any reason why there needs to be a long delay. We need to carry out conversations with local councils, because many of them, particularly in the south of England, are already under pressure because of the number of child refugees who have already come. We need to carry out those conversations, but hopefully we can then make progress during this year.

Margaret Ferrier: Documents leaked earlier this week appear to confirm what most have feared: that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership makes unacceptable concessions in respect of public health and safety regulations, opening the doors for US investors to sue for loss of profits. Will the Prime Minister recognise the concern raised by the French President and tell this House what protections his Government are seeking for the national health service and public services

David Cameron: This is the reddest of red herrings, I have to say. The health service is completely protected under this agreement, as it is under others. There are all sorts of reasons why people might be against free trade and wanting to see an expansion of trade, investment and jobs, but I think people ought to be honest about it and say that they do not want to see those things happen, rather than finding total red herrings to get in the way of something that could add tens of billion pounds to our economy and bring jobs and investment to our country—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Calm yourself, Mr Campbell. You are supposed to be a senior statesman in the House. Calm down. Take up yoga, as I have told you before.

Sheryll Murray: Looe Lifeboats in my constituency celebrates its 150th anniversary this year. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating and thanking not only the Looe lifeboat men, but all the lifeboat men who keep us safe at sea?

David Cameron: I am very happy to do that in conjunction with my hon. Friend. Lifeboat men are incredibly brave people. Having met some of them, particularly during the flood episodes that we have had in recent years, I know the immense professionalism and dedication that they bring to the task, and they put their lives at risk all the time to save others. They really are the bravest of the brave.

Fixed-term Parliaments

Graham Allen: What assessment he has made of the effect on the performance of Government of the introduction of five-year fixed-term Parliaments; and if he will make a statement.

David Cameron: What matters is what works and allows the Government to make long-term decisions in the long-term interests of the country. In my view, five-year fixed-term Parliaments are an important part of that.

Graham Allen: Will the Prime Minister ensure that his Government’s performance includes the long-overdue creation of a centre of evidence on sexual abuse of children—something that I first raised in Prime Minister’s questions with Margaret Thatcher in 1989? We can deal with the awful consequences of child sex abuse for victims and perpetrators, but we must also use early intervention expertise to stop it happening in the first place. Will the Prime Minister back the excellent work of Ministers and Members from all parties and get this much-needed What Works centre up and running without delay, within the five-year term of this Government?

John Bercow: I am glad the hon. Gentleman rescued his own question with those last words. We are grateful to him, constitutionally at least.

David Cameron: I am sorry that it has taken so long for a question in 1989 to get an answer, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that setting up a centre of expertise on sexual abuse is exactly what the Home Office is doing. It will play a significant role in identifying and sharing high-quality evidence on what works to prevent and deal with sexual abuse and exploitation. Alongside this, the Department for Education’s existing What Works centre will ensure that social workers across the country are able to learn from the best examples. It is a good example of Government reform, which I know the hon. Gentleman supports.

John Baron: The Prime Minister and we on the Government Benches can be very proud of the fact that in recent years we have reduced both relative poverty and income inequality.  We are a one nation party or we are nothing. Does the Prime Minister agree with Lord Rose, the leader of the Remain campaign, that if we were to leave the EU and exercise greater control over immigration for the sake of public services, wages would rise even faster?

David Cameron: If we were to leave the EU, I think we would see an impact on our economy that would be largely negative. That is not just my view; that is the view now of the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and a growing number of international bodies. I would say to anybody who wants to make that choice that obviously it is a choice for the British people to make, but we have to be clear about the economic consequences.

Engagements

Greg Mulholland: In 1972, my constituent Susan Lee, aged just 19, having been married for nine months, and six months pregnant with their first child, received a knock on the door to say that her husband Private James Lee had been killed in action in Northern Ireland. When Susan, now Rimmer, married and found love again, she lost all compensation for her and her daughter Donna-Marie, and she still has no compensation for having made that huge sacrifice. That is a disgraceful way to treat those who have lost loved ones who were serving our country. Will the Prime Minister meet me and Mrs Rimmer to discuss this case and the injustice that still faces several hundred more widows in this country

David Cameron: I will make sure that Susan Rimmer gets the meeting and the attention that she deserves. I know that the Minister with responsibility for defence personnel and veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), met the War Widows Association earlier this year so that it could put forward its case. Of course, it was this Government who made a historic change so that war widows who remarried, from 1 April 2015, would retain their war widow’s pension. That was a change long asked for and only delivered under this Government. We will continue to look at this issue, but at present we are of the view—this is the long-standing policy of successive Governments—that we should not make these changes and apply them retrospectively.

Daniel Kawczynski: Yesterday the Foreign Affairs Committee started our inquiry on Anglo-Russian relations. This afternoon I have a Westminster Hall debate on Anglo-Russian relations. Despite all the tensions between our two countries, will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that he will redouble his efforts to try to lower tensions with that fellow permanent member of the UN Security Council?

David Cameron: Of course we want to keep tensions low, and of course we want to have good relations, but we cannot ignore the fact that Russian-backed and directed separatists have effectively tried to redraw the boundaries of Europe. When we consider how dangerous such exercises have been in the past, we have to take them extremely seriously in the present.

Keith Vaz: May I thank the Prime Minister for joining Leicestershire MPs and the rest of the planet in congratulating Leicester City football club on their brilliant and historic success in the premier league? During this amazing season, local Leicester hero, Gary Lineker, thought the idea of Leicester winning the league was so far-fetched that he said he would present “Match of the Day” in his underwear if they won. Does the Prime Minister, as an Aston Villa   supporter—my commiserations to him on their season—agree that, in politics as well as in football, when people make a promise, they should keep it?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree. I have been watching everything Gary Lineker has said since, and he is not quite answering the question—something that, of course, no one ever gets away with in this House. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said; obviously, I hope it is just the start of him joining the blue team.

DUBLIN SYSTEM: ASYLUM

Anne Main: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on reforms to the Dublin agreement and the effects on asylum.

James Brokenshire: This morning the European Commission published its proposals for reform of the Dublin protocol and emergency relocation in response to the migration crisis in the Mediterranean. The proposals were first announced under the EU-Turkey deal, and agreement is critical to finding a solution for Europe’s asylum systems ahead of the summer. The Government will now scrutinise the proposals carefully.
As the House will be aware, the UK has an opt-in to any EU proposals on justice and home affairs issues. It is not bound to sign up to the proposals the Commission has published today; we will have three months to consider whether to do so. The proposals will be laid before Parliament, and an explanatory memorandum will be provided. Scrutiny Committees in both Houses will look at the issue in detail, and Parliament will be able to consider the proposals in the usual way.
The Government strongly support the principles behind the Dublin regulation. We believe that an asylum claim made in the EU should be dealt with by the member state most responsible for the applicant’s presence in the EU. This provides certainty for the applicant and protects other member states’ asylum systems from abuse. But our starting position is clear: we will not opt into any legislative proposal that replaces the existing Dublin principles with a redistribution mechanism, and we do not support relocation. Those in need of protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. We support the existing Dublin regulations and the principles underpinning them.
In this context, it is worth noting that the Commission has been very clear today that, should we not opt into the revised Dublin regulations, the existing regulations will continue to apply between the UK and other member states, and this is at least partly a direct result of the Government’s engagement with the Commission and other member states. As such, there is no risk that we would lose our existing powers to return people to other EU member states—powers that we have used nearly 12,000 times since 2005.
Where an individual is the responsibility of another EU member state under EU law, the Government seek to return them under the Dublin regulations—and we will continue to do so. We have been engaged in regular constructive conversations with our European counterparts and the European Commission, and will participate fully in the negotiations on this draft proposal at European level. I commend this statement to the House.

Anne Main: I thank the Minister for his statement, although I am somewhat concerned that it will be three months before we know what this will look like in reality, given that we have a very important referendum coming up in that time.
The Minister said in February that the Dublin agreement
“should be upheld, ?not undermined.”—[Official Report, 29 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 689.]
In theory, the Dublin asylum regulations ensure that EU countries can deport refugees to their first port of entry, as he just re-confirmed. The Secretary of State recently restated her view
“that amending the Dublin regulation is unnecessary and risks undermining a vital tool in managing asylum claims within the EU.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 21WS.]
However, the EU Commission is pressing ahead with reforms despite her views, and despite many European countries expressing their extreme disquiet. Under the existing rules, Britain ostensibly, as the Minister said, has the right to deport asylum seekers to their first port of entry. However, in practice that means—he gave a figure—that only 1% of asylum seekers from UK each year have been relocated to the first port of entry, according to Eurostat. Does he accept that this very low figure of only 1% for relocations is accurate? If so, will he explain why the UK is performing so badly under the current regulations?
In practice, the Dublin agreement is very far from perfect, and the EU is desperate to find ways of evening out the strains from the large numbers of asylum seekers, as well as of not rocking the British boat before our referendum. Even the European Commission has acknowledged that the current Dublin system does not work. Germany has all but abandoned it, and Greece has apparently not abided by it since 2011. The Commission has stated:
“Even where Member States accept transfer requests, only about a quarter of such cases result in effective transfers, and, after completion of a transfer, there are frequent cases of secondary movements back to the transferring Member State”.
Does the Minister accept that even with relocations as low as 1%, we are often obliged to re-admit individuals under the secondary transfer process? Does he have figures for the House on how many are relocated back to the United Kingdom? Given the low numbers sent back to the first port of entry under this system, and the fact that many of them return, does he still believe that this is a good deal for Britain? Despite the haggling and horse-trading going on behind closed doors as we speak, has the Secretary of State secured a permanent and favourable opt-out from any form of quota sharing—an opt-out that cannot be overruled at any point in future by other member countries? It is important to know that at this moment.
These proposals are part of a package to try to manage the surge in migrants and refugees flooding into Europe. The Commission is in the process of proposing measures revising the terms of the Dublin regulation—namely, imposing a financial penalty of €250,000 for every refugee not taken by a country if another member state experiences a sudden influx. How will this new quota/penalty system proposal sit with the current Dublin III proposal that the Minister says he wishes to stay within? Has he secured a permanent and favourable opt-out from any form of penalty payment that might be negotiated in future for non-acceptance of quotas—one that could not be overruled at any point in future by other member countries?

John Bercow: Order. Before the Minister responds, two points should be made. First, I say in all courtesy and gently to the hon. Lady that she modestly exceeded her time allocation, but I am sure that that was inadvertent and will not be repeated on subsequent occasions.
Secondly, equally courteously and gently, I say to the Minister, with reference to his final sentence commending his statement to the House, that he did not make a statement to the House. The Government could perfectly well have volunteered a statement to the House, but the reason the right hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber is that I required a Minister to attend the Chamber to answer the urgent question—capital U, capital Q—from the hon. Lady. It may seem a fine distinction to those attending our proceedings, but it is quite an important one. The right hon. Gentleman is here involuntarily and not voluntarily. I hope the position is now clear.

Julian Lewis: Deport him!

John Bercow: No, he does not need to be deported—we want him to answer the question.

James Brokenshire: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am always the servant of the House in this regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has raised various points. The UK has a very clear opt-in arrangement in relation to justice and home affairs matters and we retain firm control over the ability to decide which matters to opt into, as I explained clearly in my opening comments.
The existing Dublin regulations provide a significant benefit. As I have said, we have used the process to remove nearly 12,000 people from the UK to other EU member states over the past 10 years.
My hon. Friend asked whether we may subsequently be bound by, or be required to be participants in, the new arrangements. I point her to a specific statement in the European Commission’s press release:
“The UK and Ireland are not required but instead determine themselves the extent to which they want to participate in these measures, in accordance with the relevant Protocols attached to the Treaties. If they do not opt in, the current rules as they operate today will continue to apply to them, in line with the Treaties.”
That provides the important clarification and certainty sought by my hon. Friend. Clearly, that provides protection in relation to whether or not we decide to opt into certain matters, including the quota penalty, to which she referred.

Keir Starmer: Let us be clear from the start: through our opt-out on home affairs and justice, Britain would not be required to take part in any asylum relocation system, nor would we be required to pay any financial levy to avoid it. Let us also be clear, however, that we have a keen national interest and a moral responsibility to ensure that effective systems are in place to tackle the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe in a decade. A humanitarian crisis on this scale clearly needs a concerted EU-wide response.
It is clear that the Dublin arrangements are not working on the ground. They are not able to cope with the numbers or process the claims. For those precise reasons, Labour has been calling for many months for a reconsideration of how the Dublin arrangements work in practice. The Government, as ever, have been slow and reluctant to act, as characterised by the Minister’s involuntary appearance here today.
Labour is also clear that the key Dublin principles preventing first country states from refusing to process asylum seekers and allowing return to first country are important. We welcome the Government’s update on that, but what reform proposals have they made to the Commission?
There is also the wider and key question of unaccompanied children in Europe. Today the chair of the Association of Jewish Refugees called on the Prime Minister to do more to help what he called “the most vulnerable victims” of the Syrian conflict. We cannot continue to sit on our hands or to be subject to the repugnant rhetoric that these children in Europe are safe—they are not. There is a groundswell of support. When will the Government finally listen? If there is to be a U-turn, the sooner it happens, the better.

James Brokenshire: The hon. and learned Gentleman clearly did not hear what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s Question Time just a few moments ago. He said that we are in discussions with Save the Children and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about what further assistance can be provided to those who had already registered in Europe before the EU-Turkey deal came into force. He also mentioned the discussions that we will have with local authorities.
I reject entirely the hon. and learned Gentleman’s claim that the Government have been slow to act on the Dublin regulations. We have sent experts to France and other European countries to support that process, to enable its practical implementation on the ground, and to ensure that it bears fruit and speeds up.
The hon. and learned Gentleman highlighted issues relating to the Dublin regulations. The Government believe that the long-standing principles at the heart of the Dublin system are the right ones, and it would be a major error to tear them up and replace them with something completely different. Dublin may not be operating as it should be, but that does not meant that its principles are fundamentally flawed. That is the approach that this Government will take to further negotiation.
Right hon. and hon. Members will not have seen the proposals in detail, because they have only just been published. It is right, therefore, that we reflect on them in detail and continue our discussions in order to ensure a reformed Dublin system that benefits the UK, while acknowledging the protections we have to maintain the existing Dublin arrangements.

Bill Cash: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) not only on securing the urgent question, but on the manner in which she conducted her analysis. She was, of course, completely right. The European Scrutiny Committee is looking at this very matter and we will be talking about it this afternoon. Would the Minister be good enough to give us an assurance that, if we so decide, which I feel we will, that there should be a debate on the Floor of the House, he would encourage that with the Whips? Will he also make sure that the matter is not left hanging around for as long as three months? We need urgent answers to these questions.

James Brokenshire: The three-month period is the time the UK has to consider whether to opt into measures at the outset. As my hon. Friend will know, that is one of our protections in our relationship with the EU with  regard to justice and home affairs matters. The Commission has published its papers this morning and I am sure that they will be scrutinised in detail by the European Scrutiny Committee. The Government will provide information and support that process in order to ensure that the measure is properly scrutinised by the House. There is no delay on the Government’s part: the three-month period is our safeguard in deciding whether to opt in, and it certainly does not defer scrutiny.

Joanna Cherry: The Dublin rules were not fit for purpose, even before the current crisis in Europe developed, and that crisis has pushed the system way beyond breaking point. Even a child would understand that front-line countries such as Greece and Italy cannot be expected to deal alone with all the asylum seekers who arrive there. The proposed system of financial penalties would be an improvement, but it is a distant second best to the proper sharing of responsibility throughout the European Union. If the United Kingdom is not prepared to sign up to the new EU asylum system, exactly what steps will the Government take in order for the UK to do its bit for those already in Europe, particularly the child refugees?
When I was in Calais with other Scottish National party MPs at Easter, we met many refugees with family in the UK, and we met men who had acted as interpreters for the UK armed forces, including men who had been at Camp Bastion at the same time as Prince Harry and when the Prime Minister visited. The Government keep assuring us that they are taking action to speed up the processing of take charge requests, once they receive them. Will the Minister now provide us with the figures on processing times that we have repeatedly asked for, so that we can have some evidence that those take charge requests are being dealt with more speedily?
More fundamentally, there is a real problem with the French side of things being handled slowly and the fact that many of the refugees in Calais and Dunkirk are afraid to claim asylum in France because of the very bad experiences they have had there already, including being tear gassed by French authorities. Will the British Government consider providing a route to bypass the French system and allow direct claims to the UK based on family ties?

James Brokenshire: The relevant requests under the existing Dublin arrangements are being processed in a matter of weeks, as I have indicated to the hon. and learned Lady on previous occasions. Direct contact between officials on both sides means that they are able to make speedy decisions and ensure that those who have links to the UK can be reunited. The Government believe in that principle very strongly. We are also providing additional funding to and investment in other parts of Europe, and that work is absolutely intended to support that principle.
The hon. and learned Lady mentioned the French Government’s actions. They have engaged a specific non-governmental organisation, France Terre d’Asile, to identify people in the camps and ensure that they are protected speedily. We support that work and we will continue to support the French Government and play our part in ensuring that those who have a connection to the UK are established, identified and come to the UK quickly.

Kenneth Clarke: Does the Minister agree that the migrant crisis that we face is our part of a crisis that affects every European Union member state and requires a European Union solution? It is a complete absurdity, first promulgated by the UK Independence party, that if we left the EU these people would somehow no longer be a problem for us.
As the Government have played a full part in the limited progress so far on closing the outer border of Europe and making arrangements with Turkey for the return of asylum seekers, does the Minister accept that although we are legally quite entitled to insist on the Dublin convention, and of course must exercise our opt-out when it is in our interests, we must have regard to the problems of Greece, Italy and other countries? Those countries have not encouraged these vast numbers of people to come to them, and we will need the co-operation of their Governments if we are eventually to restore order in every member state, including the United Kingdom.

James Brokenshire: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right that this is an EU-wide problem which we will need to continue to address at that level, and that it is clearly not the case that the UK leaving the EU in the referendum would suddenly make the migration crisis go away.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentions Greece and Italy, and he will equally know that the EU-Turkey deal is intended to support efforts on the frontline. From next week we will be sending out about 75 experts to support front-line activity in Greece.

Keith Vaz: I think that in his heart, the Minister probably accepts everything that the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said today, including that the Dublin agreement is in crisis not because of the United Kingdom but because other EU countries are flouting the way it operates. The Home Affairs Committee saw that for itself when it visited Greece and Italy. Other partners need to fulfil their obligations under Dublin and deal with matters in their countries so that people do not end up coming to Calais seeking to come over to the United Kingdom. To do that, they need just 10% of the money that has gone to Turkey. The EU-Turkey deal was the most generous in history, but Greece and Italy are the countries that need our support.

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman will know about the practical support that we are providing through the European Asylum Support Office to front-line states that have seen significant numbers of people arriving on their shores. We have provided £70 million of funding for the Europe-wide response, which is a significant contribution to the activities needed to support vulnerable migrants. He is right that we need to continue the work with Greece and Italy, which is precisely what the Government will do, as we recognise the pressures that those Governments are under.

John Redwood: The EU documents about the EU-Turkey agreement, including the creation of a visa-free area for most of the EU and Turkey, make it clear that strengthening the Turkish frontier with Syria, Iraq and Iran must be part of the revised asylum  and migration policy. Quite remarkably, and rather strangely, the documents say that the EU will help build walls, fences and ditches along what is an extremely long border. Can the Minister tell us how many miles of those impediments to migration the EU has in mind, and what the costs might be?

James Brokenshire: The clear focus is on seeing that refugees do not make the journey across the Mediterranean sea to the shores of Europe, which is consistent with the approach that the Government have taken. It is why we have pledged £2.3 billion to tackling the humanitarian crisis, which is giving people a sense of hope and opportunity through work and education. That is the right approach to show people why they should not be making the journey, and the EU-Turkey deal supports that.

Alex Salmond: I know that the Minister is proud of his opt-in, but in reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) he seemed to agree in principle that the refugee crisis is a European crisis that requires collective action. If we had the Brokenshire regulations instead of the Dublin regulations, what exactly would they be?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for framing the question in that way. It underlines the need for each EU member state to play a part, which is precisely what the UK Government are doing. We are providing expert support, funding and a significant contribution to resettlement through the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the new children at risk resettlement scheme. The basic principles of Dublin are right and need to be upheld, but the question is how we can improve the practical aspects  of it.

Andrew Murrison: If the Dublin convention is to work optimally, it requires the collection of biometric data from migrants. Perfectly understandably, the more savvy migrant declines to co-operate with that process, probably with the connivance of Italian and Greek officials. What can be done to strengthen that part of the Dublin arrangements?

James Brokenshire: It is about practical implementation, and that is why I made the point about the 75 experts we are sending out to Greece. Other European countries are doing the same, to see that the practical measure of taking fingerprints is upheld at the frontline. I think that practical support will make the difference.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the Minister accept that the Dublin regulation should put a floor on what we do, not a ceiling? With that in mind, will he look again at the treatment of those who claim asylum having previously helped our armed forces in Afghanistan as interpreters? If they had treated us as we now treat them, the lives of many of our servicemen would have been put at risk or lost.

James Brokenshire: I will look carefully at what the right hon. Gentleman says about how those who have supported the British armed forces in Afghanistan are  analysed and treated in our asylum system. Many right hon. and hon. Members have raised that issue, and I can assure him that I am giving it close attention.

Huw Merriman: Does the Minister agree that EU reform in this area should take into account a member state’s efforts to resettle refugees from third countries outside the EU and to fund those countries? With the UK having delivered more than £1 billion of aid to try to prevent perilous journeys at sea, it would be right for the EU to endorse our approach if reduced migration is the aim.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the steps that the Government have taken through the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. Our focus remains on providing safe routes for the most vulnerable in the region. The UK has made an important contribution, which plays a part in the overall work across the EU of providing stability and preventing people from making the journey.

Stella Creasy: The Minister will know that there is a huge amount of concern about the issue in this country, and especially about unaccompanied children in the camps in Calais. It is welcome to hear that the Government now agree with Alf Dubs, but given what the Minister has said today and the problems that we have seen to date with people claiming asylum through the current Dublin arrangements, will he give us some numbers? How many young people does he think the UK will now be able to offer sanctuary to as a result of the decision that the Government have made today?

James Brokenshire: The Prime Minister said earlier that we will discuss the matter with local authorities, and we will also continue discussions with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Save the Children and others. It is right that we assess the issue carefully in that way and come to the right conclusion.

James Berry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK has the double protection of being outside the automatic opt-in and outside Schengen, so that when asylum seekers choose not to claim asylum at the first port of call, they cannot travel across Europe and come to the UK through a no-border zone?

James Brokenshire: We have the best of both worlds in being outside the borderless area of Schengen, which gives us the protection of being able to uphold our own border and carry out the necessary checks, and having legal rights through the opt-ins and the enhanced mechanisms that the Prime Minister achieved through his renegotiation, which will add to that protection.

Andrew Slaughter: It would be helpful if the Minister made it clear, given that the Government are now going to accept the Dubs amendment, that many of the justice and home affairs opt-outs are designed, as he has just said, to control Britain’s borders. He will be aware of the very good journalism by Ben Riley-Smith of The Telegraph showing that the Semaphore system, which controls those coming into the country, went down for several days last summer, leading to the  Minister and the Home Secretary being roused from their beds. Yesterday, his permanent secretary admitted that that had happened many times but would not say when and for how long. Do we not deserve that information? Will the Minister publish it?

James Brokenshire: We provide clear assurance and protections for the UK border. We take a multi-layered approach. We ensure that the primary control points have 100% checks for scheduled arrivals, which the last Labour Government did not do. This Government will continue to maintain that focus on our border and security.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend will know from the conference on the migrant crisis at which both he and I spoke last week of the anger and despair of the Hungarian Government at what is now being proposed by the European Union. Will he explain what our Government are doing to criticise, or to try to take enforcement action against, Germany for its unilateral rejection of the current regulations?

James Brokenshire: As I have indicated to the House, the Government have opt-outs and opt-ins for certain measures. There are aspects of Schengen that we are not party to, and we will not be party to the Schengen area. It is for those member states bound by those regulations to enforce compliance, with the Commission. That is rightly a matter for them and not for the UK.

Tom Brake: I hope that the Minister will find a way to provide more support for unaccompanied children. Compassion demands it. Will he outline how the UK front-line support that is going to be provided to Greece and Italy will help to ensure that unaccompanied children already in the European Union do not go missing?

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about issues such as trafficking and exploitation. Kevin Hyland, the independent anti-slavery commissioner, will be travelling out to Greece and Italy shortly. The experts we are sending out will include people with knowledge and understanding of those issues in relation to children, so as to seek to provide greater assurance on the very matter he raised.

Steven Baker: Through their recent renegotiation the Government have demonstrated that an axiom of our EU membership is our common European citizenship, which implies the common treatment of people right across the EU. Will the Minister not concede that if the public vote to remain in the EU, he will not long be able to resist pressure in the Council of Ministers to concede our opt-out and to join the arrangements, whatever those are, in a process of bargaining away to achieve whatever happen to be the objectives of the Government of the day?

James Brokenshire: I do not concede that. The UK has very clear legal protections; indeed the way in which we opted out of a number of pre-existing justice and home affairs measures shows the clear approach of this Government in upholding what is in the UK’s best interests. I have been very explicit this afternoon in highlighting that we judge that being part of the relocation mechanism is not in the interests of the UK.

Philip Davies: Given that the Minister has said that the asylum regime may well change after the EU referendum, will he concede that there is no status quo on the ballot paper for the referendum, just as those who voted to stay in the Common Market in 1975 did not get the status quo? Given that Opposition parties seem to be working on the basis that other EU countries are incapable of providing decent and humane refuge to asylum seekers, does he agree that we should not want to be part of a political union that cannot treat asylum seekers properly and with decency?

James Brokenshire: On the status quo, the Commission has said explicitly that we can continue to uphold and operate the existing Dublin arrangements if we decide not to opt in to the new measures published today. That assurance is important. Clearly, we will continue to work to support other EU partners, to ensure that those who claim asylum on their shores are able to do so effectively. Our expert support is precisely in tune with that.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Part of the plan announced today is a proposal that European countries that refuse to give shelter to refugees could be forced to pay into the coffers of countries that do take them. We have the temporary opt-out on this at present, but will the Minister state that that opt-out is absolutely guaranteed and is one that we will not consider reneging on? Will he also publish the legal advice he has been given on the legal basis for that proposal?

James Brokenshire: I say to my hon. Friend that I am not referring to some temporary opt-out. Our ability to opt-in to measures on justice and home affairs matters is one of the basic principles of the treaty. I know he understands and recognises that. It is the basis upon which I have made my points to the House this afternoon.

Peter Bone: The Minister has been involved on the issue of human trafficking for many years and so knows about the problem. One problem with continental Europe is its open borders. Whatever the other advantages of those open borders, they are a human trafficker’s charter. It seems to me that the new proposals will add to that problem. We want more checking, to stop the evil crime of trafficking.

James Brokenshire: I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend, who has done so much to highlight the issue and has assisted in the reforms that have taken place. We need to step up our response to organised immigration crime, which is why we have established the taskforce and will continue to work with European partners to highlight these important issues and see that children are protected and do not fall into the hands of traffickers. I hope that the work on the frontline and the further inputs from Kevin Hyland will assist us not just as a country but in supporting other member EU states.

ROYAL ASSENT

John Bercow: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Enterprise Act 2016
Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Act 2016
Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016
Trade Union Act 2016
Transport for London Act 2016.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ELECTRICITY GENERATING CONSENT)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Tom Blenkinsop: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the disclosure, consideration and approval of proposals for onshore electricity power stations of 50MW or less; to require the application of Engineering Construction Industry (NAECI) terms and conditions in certain circumstances; to require sector-specific collective national workforce agreements in other circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Any solid biomass or combined heat and power plant producing 50 MW or below—indeed, any power project producing 50 MW or below—does not come under the terms of national planning consent. Ostensibly that sounds fine, as it supposedly gives more control to local people about developments in their locality. Projects with a generating capacity of 50 MW and less are considered under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and can therefore be dealt with by local authorities.
That is where, for workers in the construction industry, the problems begin. Civil engineering and engineering construction are lifestyle choices that demand commitment, loyalty and hard graft. Workers more often than not work long hours under arduous and sometimes dangerous conditions to produce the end-product. However, all those great virtues count for nothing when the dice are loaded. From Teesside to south Yorkshire, from Scotland to Wales, there has been a recent epidemic of deliberate subterfuge to avoid and evade the industry standard for terms and conditions for construction workers in the power generation sector.
Locally, I and fellow Teesside Labour MPs, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Anna Turley), for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), have been trying to unravel a complex knot of potential exploitation and undercutting. We have been working alongside the GMB and Unite the union at both regional and national level.
The sleight of hand employed and the deliberate use of opaque contractual arrangements via umbrella companies, which has seen workers paying their own national insurance twice, are known universally. Put together with potential undercutting and exploitation of migrant workers, they only frustrate an area and its people, who have seen massive privation in the light of closures at SSI Steel, Caparo Hartlepool, Air Products and Boulby potash mine, to mention just a few of the sites undergoing closure or job losses. That frustration has culminated in a year-long escalation of unrest in the construction industry fraternity, with mass protests outside the Wilton International site about the fact that the Wilton 11 energy from waste plant is being built on Teesside with a predominantly non-UK labour force.
Any MP considering the upcoming construction of energy from waste, biomass, or combined heat and power plant, must be aware that any individual project in or near their constituency that is under 50 MW will have achieved planning consent from a local authority. That consent will almost certainly not carry the necessary  requirements of collective agreements, such as NAECI terms and conditions for workers in the construction of the project, which would also instil a level playing field for all at the tendering stages of the project.
Until now, the assumption has been that NAECI terms would carry over, but sadly that has not been the case. Owing to unscrupulous practices by certain construction companies, the lack of a voice in this growing market of power generation has led many who have been shut out of employment to take on board tactics that are born out of pure frustration and can develop into demonstrable anger. On 1 March and 7 April 2015, large numbers of construction workers took part in co-ordinated protests outside new biomass power stations in Rotherham, south Yorkshire, Port Talbot and Dunbar, and with the support of GMB, Unite and UCATT trade union members, they blockaded and disrupted work on those sites.
As a comparator for the injustice and undercutting of those unscrupulous construction companies, the rate under the national industry agreement should be between £16 and £64 an hour, depending on the skill of the role. However, the largely migrant workforce on those projects is being paid just €9 to €13 an hour—approximately between £7 and £10. With current levels of unemployment above the national average in the industry, it is no wonder that those workers are angry at the exploitation of migrant labour at the expense of local employment.
How can developers and employers get away with this race to the bottom? In Rotherham, for example, the local council gave planning consent in 2011, but sites producing under 50 MW have no legal provision for adherence to collective agreements.
The venture capitalists Brite Partnerships bought the site and then sold it on at a big profit to a Danish company, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. CI then contracted Babcock & Wilcox Vølund and Interserve to design, construct and operate the plant. In talks at its Birmingham office with GMB and Unite, BWV refused to allow the project to be included under the terms of the “blue book” NAECI national agreement. Subsequently, BWV sub-contracted the construction of the boiler to a Croatian firm called Ðuro Ðakovic TEP, which tendered to a lowest bid based on Croatian economic wage levels.
Ðuro Ðakovic TEP has form—very bad form. It is the same company that GMB and Unite caught underpaying its largely migrant workforce last year on the Ferrybridge Multifuels power station in Yorkshire. Because that job came under the NAECI independent audit facility, the unions were able to force the company to repay every euro that it owed its workers. However—sadly—the unions discovered only later from a worker via email, that when those workers got back to Croatia, the money was retaken from their wages under duress. Because the Rotherham biomass project and similar new waste-to-energy plants are not covered by collective agreements, and because they are under 50 MW, the employer can pay below the rate, and legally get away with it.
Well-meaning legislation from the European Union to try to combat such malpractice does not go far enough. Currently, it only gives workers who have been posted to work temporarily in another EU country the protection of the host country’s minimum standards, namely the minimum wage, not the industry rate such as NAECI. That is not the EU’s fault; it is our fault for not protecting the pay, terms and conditions of all workers at the trade union NAECI national agreed rate.
Without blanket collective bargaining for all workers, firms will use caveats to exploit them. Support of collective bargaining and of collectively bargained nationally achieved terms is the only solution to prevent the exploitation of immigrant labour, and a real tangible means by which we as a nation can prevent the deliberate social discord that is created among our own communities by effectively excluding workers in our towns from seeking and achieving meaningful employment.
We can achieve such collective bargaining, and also help local authorities that are under severe financial and logistical pressure, by ensuring at the start of the planning process—whether a power generation site is above or below 50 MW—that collective agreements such as NAECI “blue book” terms, and nationally agreed minimum terms, are adhered to by any company that is constructing on British soil. That must be clearly written within the contract.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered.
That Tom Blenkinsop, Kevin Barron, Sarah Champion, John Healey, Andy McDonald, Anna Turley, Alex Cunningham and Mr Iain Wright present the Bill.
Tom Blenkinsop accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First to be; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 May, and to be printed (Bill 173).

Alan Whitehead: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you received immediate notification of a statement by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on the admission by the chairman of Arriva in France that 400 dossiers relating to parts of reactors meeting required standards have been falsified, and on the extent to which those falsifications were present in the generic design assessment process for the operation of Arriva reactors in the UK?

John Bercow: I have received no indication that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has any plans to make a statement to the House on that extremely important matter. The hon. Gentleman may be dissatisfied by that news. If he is, he has manifold ways in which to pursue the matter through the use of the Order Paper and the facility of this Chamber. Knowing his experience and dexterity, I feel sure that he will use all the instruments available to him.

OPPOSITION DAY

[Un-allotted Half Day]

NHS Bursaries

[Relevant document: e-petition, entitled Keep the NHS Bursary (113491).]

Heidi Alexander: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the contribution of student nurses, midwives, allied health professionals and other healthcare staff; has serious concerns about the potential impact of removing NHS bursaries on the recruitment and retention of staff; and calls on the Government to drop their plans to remove NHS bursaries and instead to consult on how they can best fund and support the future healthcare workforce.
I have been told that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), will be opening this debate for the Government. Given that the Health Secretary is sitting next to him, may I ask the Minister why we will not be hearing from his boss today? If he would like to give a genuine reason I would be happy to take an intervention, but if not I will take it that the Health Secretary simply does not want to defend his policy to the House. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There is a certain amount of chirruping from the Treasury Bench and elsewhere on this matter, and I simply make two points. It is entirely for the Government to decide which Minister to field, but I say gently to the Secretary of State, and to the Deputy Leader of the House, that to sit on the Bench rather than to participate while these matters are debated, is one thing—particularly in the case of the Secretary of State—but to sit there fiddling ostentatiously with an electronic device defies the established convention of the House that such devices should be used without impairing parliamentary decorum. They are impairing parliamentary decorum, and in very simple terms the Secretary of State and the Deputy Leader of the House are being rank discourteous to the shadow Secretary of State and to the House. It is a point so blindingly obvious that only an extraordinarily clever and sophisticated person could fail to grasp it.

Heidi Alexander: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is not the first time that the Health Secretary has chosen not to respond to debates that I have secured or questions that I have put. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I say to the Deputy Leader of the House: put the device away. If you do not want to put it away, get out of the Chamber. It is rude for the—[Interruption.] Order! I am not inviting a response from the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] Order! I am simply telling her that it is discourteous to behave like that—a point that most people would readily understand.

Heidi Alexander: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will leave my comments on that matter there.
In the past few months, Ministers and I have had a number of exchanges across the Dispatch Box about the unnecessary and dangerous fight the Government  are picking with junior doctors. You might think that having totally alienated one section of the NHS workforce, Ministers would think twice about doing it again, but you would be wrong. Not content with junior doctors, the Government are now targeting the next generation of nurses, midwives and other allied health professionals: podiatrists, physiotherapists, radiographers and many more. Instead of investing in healthcare students, and instead of valuing them and protecting their bursaries, which help with living costs and cover all their tuition fees, the Government are asking them to pay for the privilege of training to work in the NHS: scrap the bursary, ask tomorrow’s NHS workforce to rack up enormous debts, and claim that this is the answer to current staff shortages.

Andrew Murrison: The hon. Lady is making a spending commitment. Why then, only a few months ago, did she stand on a manifesto that opposed the Government’s £10 billion investment in the NHS?

Heidi Alexander: The Labour party has always made it clear that it would have given the NHS every penny it needs.
Given the approach to healthcare students I have outlined, most people would think the Government had taken leave of their senses. They would be right.

Diana R. Johnson: My constituents in Hull are baffled by the Government’s approach. At a time when our local hospitals have to recruit nurses from Spain and other European countries, stopping bursaries that enable more people to get training seems absolutely ridiculous.

Heidi Alexander: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the bursary acts as an incentive to get those students into training and into the NHS.
A few weeks ago, the Government launched their consultation on the technical detail of the changes—not the principle, just the detail. In his foreword, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Ipswich, claimed that the proposals were
“good for students, good for patients and good for the NHS.”
The opposite is the case.
Before I set out why the plans are so bad, it is important to remind ourselves of why our country has a nursing shortage in the first place. Shortly after the 2010 election, the coalition Government cut the number of nurse training commissions in an attempt to make short-term savings. The cuts saw nurse training places reduced from more than 20,000 a year to just 17,000, the lowest level since the 1990s. As a result, we trained 8,000 fewer nurses in the previous Parliament than we would have done had we maintained commissions at 2010 levels. At the time, experts such as the Royal College of Nursing warned that the cuts would cause
“serious issues in undersupply for years to come.”
It was right, but it was ignored by Ministers who were too focused on the short term and no doubt too distracted by their plans to launch a massive reorganisation of the NHS.
Our health service is now suffering the consequences of those decisions. New analysis by the House of Commons Library released today shows that the number of nurses per head of population fell from 6,786 per million  people in 2009 to 6,645 per million people in 2015. A Unison survey published just last week found that more than two-thirds of respondents felt that staffing levels had got worse in the past year, with a further 63% saying they felt there were inadequate numbers of staff on the wards to ensure safe, dignified and compassionate care. Because of these shortages, hospitals are forced to recruit from overseas or spend vast amounts on expensive agency staff.

Paula Sherriff: In the years 2014 to 2015, the NHS spent £3.3 billion on agency staff. Does the short-sighted step of removing the bursary mean that beleaguered trusts may actually be more reliant on agency staff?

Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is completely right to point out that the problem of staff shortages leads to more agency staff having to be used, and that creates an enormous black hole in hospital finances. My fear is that the proposals will put off the next generation of nurses.
It now appears that the Government are making some of the same mistakes all over again. A report sneaked out on the day the House rose for the Easter recess revealed that the Government had commissioned only one-tenth of the extra nurse training places that experts said were needed this year. The report, from the Migration Advisory Committee, states:
“We were told that HEE—
Health Education England—
“has acknowledged that, on the basis of workforce modelling alone, they would have liked to commission an additional 3,000 places in 2016-2017. Funding constraints meant that they had only commissioned an additional 331 places; one tenth of what was actually needed”.

David Morris: Does the hon. Lady not agree that by changing the way we run the NHS, especially in relation to bursaries and opening it up to more competition, we will get more nurses coming into the NHS, thus plugging the gap she describes?

Heidi Alexander: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, and later in my speech I shall explain why in some detail.
I would like to return to the Migration Advisory Committee report, because it does not make happy reading for Ministers. It goes on to say:
“It seems self-evident to us that the reduction in the number of commissioned training places between 2010 and 2013 across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, was a significant contributing factor towards the current national shortage of nurses.”
Finally, there is the crucial sentence that sums up why we are experiencing across-the-board nursing shortages:
“Almost all of these issues relate to, and are caused by, a desire to save money. But this is a choice, not a fixed fact. The Government could invest more resource if it wanted to.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the Migration Advisory Committee. Hospitals are short of nurses. Mental health services are short of nurses. So, too, are care homes, hospices and primary care. We therefore have a big problem. No one in this House disputes that, but no one in this House should be under any illusion as  to the cause. The question, when faced with this problem, is this: what is the right thing to do? How best can the Government work with experts to ensure that we are training enough staff and supporting those staff so that they stay motivated and stay working in the NHS?

Richard Graham: Of course we all agree that there is a significant shortage of nurses, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right to ask what should be done. Does she therefore support the Government’s concept of associate nurses, which I believe will make a huge difference in places like my constituency where we need new nurses of this kind to increase the numbers of home-trained nursing staff?

Heidi Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The key question we need answered with regard to nursing associates is whether the Government intend them to replace registered nurses. If that is the case, I fear the proposals would be bad for patient care.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you might think a sensible approach to trying to resolve this problem would be to sit down with the Royal College of Nursing, other trade unions, universities and healthcare providers to work out a way forward. But no, this Government seem incapable of that. Instead, in just two lines in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, they announced that they would be scrapping NHS bursaries and asking student nurses to pay tuition fees. The Minister will argue that this will allow universities to train more students, but his problem is this.

Nicholas Dakin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should listen to the Royal College, which said that these proposals were “high risk”, potentially
“deterring prospective students from entering the nursing profession”,
and that they risked “worsening the nursing shortage”?

Heidi Alexander: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think the Government’s problem is this: they have failed to back up their claim with any evidence and they are now faced with a breadth of opposition to this proposal, not just from Members but from the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and Unison, while organisations such as MillionPlus, the association for modern universities, are also questioning the assumptions on which the Government base this policy.

Anna Turley: Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent Zoe, who is training to be a nurse and is particularly concerned about mature students? She feels that about 50% of their time is spent in unpaid clinical placements in hospitals in the community, so they do not have the opportunity to do part-time work to support themselves as many others do. Will they not be disproportionately affected?

Heidi Alexander: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall make some remarks on that precise point later.
The Opposition’s purpose in calling today’s debate is that we hope the House can rally round what many would view as a straightforward and reasonable proposal—  that the Government drop these plans and instead consult on how properly to fund and support the future healthcare workforce.
Let me set out why these plans are bad for students, bad for patients and bad for the NHS. The Government claim that these plans will leave healthcare students 25% better off. What they will not say is that, according to their own consultation, in order to be 25% better off, a student will have to take out a maximum maintenance and tuition fee loan for three years and would graduate with debts of between £48,000 and £59,000.

Angela Rayner: Many Members will know that I had a son born at 23 weeks’ gestation who spent six months in intensive care with a neonatal nurse, Nicola Probert, who sadly died not long after my son came out of hospital. I am frightened, as many people watching this debate will be, that people like Nicola will no longer go into the profession because of the astronomical debts that they will have to take on. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a regressive step, and that the Government should think again about it?

Heidi Alexander: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It seems that the Government’s argument is that students will be better off because they can borrow more. The simple truth is that loan repayments will hit nurses’ take-home pay—there are no two ways about it. The current starting salary for a nurse is £21,692—just above the student loan repayment threshold which, of course, has been frozen. This means that nurses will start paying off their loans as soon as they graduate. According to Unison, based on current salary levels nurses will be faced with an average pay cut of over £900 a year to meet their debt repayments. How can that possibly be justified? Even worse, the average age of a student nurse is 28, so the current 30-year repayment period means that many nurses will be paying off loans to within years of retirement. We Labour Members say it is wrong to burden the next generation of NHS staff with a lifetime of debt and wrong to expect tomorrow’s nurses to pay the price for this Government’s mis- management of the NHS.
Does the Minister not understand that student nurses, midwives and other allied health professionals are different from other students? Can he not see that it is dangerous to assume that just because application rates remain stable after the trebling of tuition fees in the last Parliament, the same will happen with his proposals? Assuming healthcare students will respond in the same way as other students to a tuition fees hike is one hell of an assumption and one hell of a risk.
Courses for nursing, midwifery and other allied health professions are substantially different from most other arts and science degrees. Courses are more onerous—there are fewer holidays, longer days and longer term times—while students are also required to spend about half their time in clinical practice. This means 2,300 hours in the case of a student nurse, including night and weekend shifts as a normal part of their studies.

David Morris: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Heidi Alexander: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I want to make some progress.
These changes will effectively charge students for working in the NHS. Of course, longer term times and clinical placements also make it harder for these students to get a part-time job to supplement their income in the way many other students do. It is not just the course that makes healthcare students unique; they are much more likely to be women, much more likely to be mature students, much more likely to have children and more likely to be from BME backgrounds.
Many nursing students have already completed one degree and turn to nursing in their late 20s or early 30s—indeed, the average age of a student nurse is 28. When I think of my own friends who are nurses and midwives, I find that three out of four took the decision to re-train, having done a different first degree.
The Minister probably moves in different circles from me, but I can tell him that if he wants a dose of reality, my friends would, I am sure, be more than happy to oblige. I understand that he may not have experienced the conversations that I had in my working-class family about the pluses and minuses of racking up debts to get a degree, but I can tell him that for many nurses, under his proposals, that consideration will be all too real. Does he not realise that for the one in five healthcare students with children, the fear of debt is greater than it is for carefree, privately educated history students bound for Cambridge? My concern about these proposals is that we ultimately end up with those best placed to pay becoming nurses and midwives rather than those best placed to care. That brings me on to why these proposals are bad for patients.

Helen Whately: I think we are all agreed on the need for more nurses; the question is how we fund them. Will the hon. Lady tell us how much money she would take away from front-line NHS care in order to fund the expansion of nursing places that the country needs?

Heidi Alexander: We set out at the last election our clearly costed plans for how to recruit additional nurses, doctors and care staff to the NHS.
The NHS should have a workforce that reflects the population it serves—just as this place should, too. The mental health sector in particular relies on mature students and the additional life experience they bring to what is a very demanding environment.
A few months ago, I met Marina, a young woman who has not had an easy life, but who is now on a mission to become a mental health nurse. When Marina says that she thinks some of the people best placed to care for others are those who have experienced hardships themselves, I think she has a point; and when she says she would not have been able to start her training without the bursary, I believe her. Why is the Minister so convinced that the NHS can do without people like Marina in the future? Why does he think they should pay to train, and why will he not consider other options for increasing student numbers?
The quality of training that student nurses, midwives and other allied health professionals receive will also depend on the quality of their clinical placements. Government Ministers claim these changes could deliver  up to 10,000 extra places over the course of this Parliament, so can they set out what capacity hospitals and other providers have to accommodate these extra students, and confirm whether Health Education England has sufficient funds set aside to fund these placements? Will the Minister be clear about how this 10,000 figure was arrived at? Is it the Government’s assessment of what the system needs, what Health Education England can afford to fund or simply a big-sounding number plucked out of the air at random?
An extra 10,000 compared with when? What is the baseline year on which we should judge the Minister’s policy? I have asked him that three times in written parliamentary questions, and each time I have not received an answer. Does he not understand that if his Department cannot even answer a simple question relating to one of its key claims about the policy, that does not exactly inspire confidence? There are so many questions that the Minister needs to answer that it is impossible to do all of them justice in a single speech.

Alex Chalk: As has been indicated, it is agreed that we need to expand the number of places. Thanks to this Government, however, an extra £10 billion has been put into GP services, acute services, cancer treatment and hospital care. Which of those services would the hon. Lady cut to fund the alternative bursary scheme that she has in mind?

Heidi Alexander: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that that money is plugging a very big black hole in NHS finances. I am sure that when the Minister responds to my speech, he will note that many people who apply to study for nursing and other healthcare degrees are turned away, but what proportion of those unsuccessful applicants actually meet the entry criteria? How can he be sure that his new system will deliver the required numbers of different types of nurses and other healthcare professionals in the right geographical areas? What guarantees has he given to higher education institutions that the new arrangements will fully cover the costs of delivering degrees, and what assessment has he made of the amount of un-repaid student debt that will accumulate, given that, over a lifetime, some nurses will not earn enough to repay the totality of their loans plus interest?
The proposal to scrap NHS bursaries is a massive gamble at a time when the NHS needs certainty. Put simply, it will shift the costs of training nurses, midwives and other allied health professionals from the state to the individual. If we are all happy to enjoy the benefits of the NHS, why should we not all contribute to the training of those who work in it?
I was the first member of my family to go to university. My tuition fees were paid in full, and I received a full maintenance grant. What really worries me is that people like me, and people like my friends, will be put off what could be a fulfilling and important career. We should be doing all we can to inspire today’s schoolchildren to become the nurses and healthcare professionals of the future, but, sadly, the Government are making a very good job of doing the very opposite. If Ministers want to continue to import staff from overseas, they are going the right way about it. We owe a debt of gratitude to those staff, but we want home-grown staff too.
Finally, let me return to the Government’s consultation paper. One section is entitled
“Nursing, midwifery and allied health professional students deserve the same opportunities as other students”.
Labour Members say, “No, they deserve better.” Those people should be treated differently from other students, because they are the people who will look after us when we are older, care for our relatives when they are sick and staff the NHS when this shambolic Government are long gone.
The Government should drop these proposals and think again. I commend the motion to the House.

Ben Gummer: It is a great pleasure to respond to the motion, not least because I think that this is potentially one of the most exciting things that we will do in the NHS in the next five years to increase opportunity and quality, and the presence of nursing staff on wards. We will be able to do that because of the reform that has helped so many other students throughout the country in the last five years.
The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) entered the House at the same time as I did. In November 2010, we sat on opposite sides of the House and contributed to a debate; many of us expressed anxiety about the outcome, not least because of the enormous pressures that we were experiencing from our constituents. Members who have been here for many years will know that that was the first occasion on which a riot taking place outside the House could be heard from the Chamber. The rioters were complaining that we were going to destroy people’s ability to go to university. We were going to make it impossible for people from disadvantaged backgrounds to go there, and we were going to set back years of progress in the closing of the inequality gap in this country.
Members on both sides of the House who spoke in that debate felt very passionately about the issue. We believed that it could be resolved by different means, but over the last five years we have been able to see the effect—and, as posited by the hon. Member for Lewisham East, the evidence—of the changes that were made. That evidence is quite clear. This year, 394,380 people were given university places in this country, 35,000 more than were given places in 2010, the year of the debate. If those 35,000 were to make up a single university, it would be the fourth largest in the country: one university, the fourth largest in one year, following the expansion of opportunity that resulted from the reforms that the House passed in 2010.
The hon. Lady made the most important point, however, when she asked how the reforms extended opportunity to the people who most needed to go to university. I regret the tone that she adopted in that portion of her speech; it was, I am afraid, beneath her. It was indeed wrong that when I was at university my fees were paid for in part by nurses paying tax on low wages. That was wrong, and we accepted that it was wrong. We also accepted that the system was not helping the people who most needed to go to university in order to escape their backgrounds.
The result that we should be looking for now is the number of people from disadvantaged backgrounds who have been helped to get into university in the last  five years, and I can tell the hon. Lady that it has increased by 10,150. That is a massive increase. Had someone said back in 2010 that that would be possible, I doubt whether anyone would have given 5,000-to-one odds on it, but I can also tell the hon. Lady that 10,150 is the number of people at the University of Leicester. That is the number of people whom we have brought into the university sector as a result of the changes that we have made. We have the equivalent of one more university, full of people from disadvantaged backgrounds, as a result of the reforms that we enacted in 2010.
I know that the hon. Lady’s motivations back then were entirely honest and commendable. I also know that many Conservative Members felt likewise. But we have to accept when we get things wrong, and it is in that regard, I am afraid, that the hon. Lady, rather than us, is failing to learn from history. During the 2010 debate, in an intervention on one of my hon. Friends, she said that the proposed changes would force on students a “huge debt”, and that
“the huge debt that they could now face will act as a greater disincentive to go to university than it will for students from more affluent backgrounds”.—[Official Report, 9 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 579.]
The hon. Lady has made exactly the same point in today’s debate. She was wrong then, and I humbly suggest that she is wrong on this occasion. She should listen very carefully to the evidence that has been presented, not by me but by so many institutions, about the progress that has been made in reducing inequalities, and the reasons why we need to press ahead. In this instance, for one reason alone—and I will come on to others—we need to bring about the reforms to nursing bursaries.

Heidi Alexander: Does the Minister not accept, though, that healthcare students have very different characteristics from other students, and that their behaviour will not necessarily be same as that of students affected by the reforms in the last Parliament?

Ben Gummer: I accept that there are differences—I will come to them in a second—but implied in the hon. Lady’s point is an acceptance that she was wrong in 2010, and she should therefore be more measured in her proposals, or lack of them.

Wes Streeting: It has not all been plain sailing since the reforms, not least as regards the impact on applications from mature students, who make up a significant proportion of the nursing cohort. Does the Minister not accept that there is no proposal in the consultation on how to mitigate the risk to good recruits from mature student backgrounds, who make up a significant proportion of the nursing workforce?

Ben Gummer: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on both points: more mature students are applying now than in 2010; and there are specific recommendations in the consultation to deal with mature students.

Mark Spencer: Does this not demonstrate the Minister’s point? We have a choice: we either inspire people to aspire and give them the opportunity  to enter the NHS by talking it up, or we take the opposite view, talk the NHS down by being negative, and put people off.

Ben Gummer: I do believe that. The Opposition were wrong back in 2010, and had we followed their advice, fewer people from disadvantaged backgrounds—precisely the people Labour was elected to represent and support—would be going to university. As a result of our taking forward brave proposals, in the teeth of much opposition, we have done more for the prospects of people from disadvantaged backgrounds than any Government dealing with this matter since higher education was reformed after the second world war.
I come now, I am afraid, to the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Lewisham East. It implicitly accepts that we have made progress. The fact that it is so anaemic in offering an alternative makes it clear that there is no alternative suggestion that she thinks would achieve the aims that she and I want: an increase in the number of students going into nursing and training, and of those coming from a diverse background. It also implies that she accepts, like me, that workforce planning over the last 10, 15, 20, 30 or 40 years has failed. I can say that, whereas she is not willing to, because everything we are doing now to correct workforce numbers—for example, the 5,000 additional GPs my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary fought the last election campaign on and will be delivering in the next few years—is the result of poor commissioning decisions made not under the coalition Government, or even in the latter years of the Labour Government, but under Governments 20 and 30 years ago.
The failure to predict the number of GPs needed, and the number and types of other professionals needed, lands us perpetually in this perverse situation where we are not accepting British students on to training courses at British universities and, as a result, are not creating the numbers of domestically trained nurses we need. In response to the inadequacies in care uncovered as a result of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust scandal and the failure of the Labour Government to provide the number of nurses needed in hospitals across the country, we are having to import nurses from abroad and to fill nurse places with expensive agency posts. That is something we are putting right now.

John Glen: One of the main pieces of feedback I have had from Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust is its frustration at the reliance on agency nurses, so I welcome the Government’s moves, because they will open up supply and reduce that reliance and the significant additional costs we have seen over the last few years.

Ben Gummer: It is precisely to help my hon. Friend’s hospital that we are introducing these reforms.

Justin Madders: The Minister said there was no alternative to these proposals. Which of the royal colleges did he consult before coming to that decision?

Ben Gummer: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Lewisham East said, I did consult with the royal colleges. I have spoken at length with the Royal College of  Nursing and with Unison. As I would expect, we differ on key parts—though not every part—of the plan, but the royal college’s initial response accepted that the premise on which we were proceeding was, in significant part, correct. In the consultation, I want to find areas we can agree on and improve the proposals we have put before the public. We were open about the consultation and offered the full 12 weeks—many people said we would not do so, but we did—precisely so that we could listen to the concerns, proposals and exciting challenges from people across the sectors, and thereby improve the proposals we have put before the NHS.
The motion suggests a series of things, but not a proposal from the Opposition to do anything different. They are not offering the NHS any new money—they offered £4.5 billion less than we did at the last election—so I can only presume that the money would have to be found from cuts elsewhere in the service. The hon. Lady will have no credibility unless she tells the House that she will pay for the 10,000 additional training places out of taxpayers’ money, rather than by finding an alternative funding mechanism. I will not offer the House a series of suggestions that might or might not be better, or merely criticise proposals, rather than offering constructive improvements.

Heidi Alexander: Whenever I make suggestions, they’re just ignored.

Ben Gummer: The hon. Lady is welcome to contribute to the consultation. She is doing so now, although sadly we heard no solutions or alternative proposals. I intend to set out not suggestions, but a clear announcement of our plans, the reasons for them, and how we will enact them over the year to come.

Peter Kyle: The Opposition have proffered many solutions to the Government. Just last week, we suggested a cross-party solution to the doctors crisis, but it was thrown back in our Front-Bench team’s face. Here is another solution: will the Minister speak to colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to see whether the apprenticeship levy, which the Government are taking from all large employers, could be spent on subsidising nurses to tackle the funding challenges?

Ben Gummer: The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who has concerns about the proposals, has discussed the matter with me several times and offered some useful suggestions about the detail. I have accepted his points and incorporated them into our thinking. I am very willing to listen to people from across the House when they come with helpful suggestions, and I am sure that the Minister for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), would be interested in the hon. Gentleman’s contribution about the apprenticeship levy. The way not to do it, however, is to come to the House with a series of criticisms but not one suggestion, nor any money to provide for the increased number of training places in the plan.
We should make these changes not only for reasons of social equity, though that is the foremost reason; not only to produce 10,000 additional training places in our university system; and not only because we have a  broken planning system, which otherwise would remain broken—even people as intelligent as the hon. Member for Lewisham East cannot predict how many nurses, doctors and allied health professionals we will need in 20 or 30 years, or the skills they will need. Even were it not for all those things, it would still be important to do this, because of the changes it will make to the quality of training we can provide to nursing graduates. Across the rest of undergraduate training, universities have been released to innovate and improve their courses. Satisfaction levels have gone up and drop-out rates have fallen; consequently, people are getting a better experience.
We have not, however, been able to spread those advantages to nurses, who, I am afraid, remain trapped in a system that is prescriptive and does not take account of the skills that they and their future employers will need. By releasing universities from their straitjacket, we can make significant improvements to the quality of the training they provide.

Heidi Alexander: That’s just an assertion.

Ben Gummer: It is an assertion that is backed up by the evidence of the past five years, and which has received the recommendation of Professor Dame Jessica Corner, the chancellor of the Council of Deans of Health. I can tell the hon. Member for Lewisham East, in answer to her barracking, that Professor Dame Jessica Corner said:
“We recognise that this has been a difficult decision for the government but are pleased that the government has found a way forward. Carefully implemented, this should allow universities in partnership with the NHS to increase the number of training places and also improve day to day financial support for students while they are studying. The plan means that students will have access to more day to day maintenance support through the loans system and recognises that these disciplines are higher cost, science-based subjects.”
Likewise, Universities UK has said:
“We support increasing health professional student numbers and will work with Government and the NHS to secure the sustainable funding system”
that the Government have provided. It is particularly pleased about the impact that this will have on placement training. These are the people who are providing training in our NHS, and they support our proposals because they will release the same kind of innovation that we have seen elsewhere in the university sector.

Richard Graham: I want to reinforce a point that the Minister has made. I think—he will know this—the evidence shows that far more people from deprived backgrounds have gone to university since the changes we made five years ago, at a time when Opposition Members were saying that they would have precisely the opposite effect. So the evidence is even more conclusive than my hon. Friend suggests. Can he confirm that the maintenance grants will go up by about 25%, which will help in regard to the specific point being made by Universities UK and the other lady?

Ben Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It brings me neatly on to my next point, which is that the great virtue of these reforms to student finance is that we will be able to increase student finance support—maintenance support—by 25%.
The hon. Member for Lewisham East made some clear and sensible points. She suggested that training as a student nurse was different from being a history undergraduate, because student nurses have less time to take on a second job. There is therefore even more reason to provide better maintenance support for them. However, she has not come to tell the House that she will provide 25% additional maintenance support for students who do not have time to do a second job. She has not made that commitment, yet she has criticised our efforts to increase maintenance support by 25% precisely to help those people who would not otherwise be able to take time out to take on a university course. She cannot have it both ways. She cannot criticise us for the reforms we are undertaking while at the same time saying that students need greater support. It is precisely through these reforms that we are producing the support that so many students require.

Liz McInnes: The Minister talks about maintenance support, but can he clarify that that support will no longer be in the form of a grant, and will now be in the form of a loan? Does he acknowledge that that will land students in even more debt when they finally qualify?

Ben Gummer: By reforming the system so that this becomes a loan rather than a grant, we are able to produce 25% extra support for these students while they are training, much as with the rest of the student population.
The results relating to newly qualified nurses are not as the hon. Member for Lewisham East suggests. She should be very clear in the way she addresses this question, because all of us, whatever our views on this subject, have a duty to inform the public properly. It would be remiss of all of us, even those who disagree with the policy as she does, to mislead potential students into thinking that they will have to pay more than they would otherwise. She said that students would have to pay hundreds of pounds more in repayments once they had qualified. That is just not the case. We anticipate that a newly qualified nurse will pay roughly £90 a year more; that will be about the same as they are currently paying, because of the way in which student payment finance is gradated. The impact on newly qualified nurses will therefore not be anywhere near the impact that she has suggested. She should be very careful about how she addresses her points; otherwise, people could receive an impression about these loans that is not actually a fact.

Nicholas Dakin: What calculation has the Minister made of how much of the loan will not be paid back over a period of time? Can we have that information in the public domain as well?

Ben Gummer: The economic impact assessment is part of the consultation, and the hon. Gentleman should consult that. It will obviously depend on the way in which the student workforce develops over the next 20 or 30 years, but this has been fully costed within the Treasury’s assumptions, and we anticipate that people working beneath the current limits will not be paying back more than they are doing at the moment. That is  in the nature of the way in which student finance repayments are calculated. These measures will not land newly qualified nurses with new payments that they might otherwise not have expected.

Heidi Alexander: The Minister has urged me to be careful with my words, which I was, and I recognise that he is being careful with his, too. He is talking about newly qualified nurses. Can he confirm what the average repayment would be for the average nurse?

Ben Gummer: We do not currently have a figure for the average nurse, as the hon. Lady puts it. I cannot project where a nurse’s career path will take them 50 years into the future, for precisely the reasons that we have been discussing. The actual repayments—[Interruption.] I will come to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) in a second. The actual repayments are clearly listed in the consultation document. They are clear about the amount that will be paid back over and above what existing students would be expected to pay.
The only way in which we will be able to square the circle that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North mentioned is by reforming student finance. Rather than shouting from a sedentary position, she might like to know that, contrary to her suggestion that many people in her constituency were none the wiser about this reform, I talked about the reforms to nurses in her constituency a few months ago. I also talked to them about the introduction of apprenticeships and of nursing associate grades, all of which are part of the reforms that I am outlining, and they were very excited about the changes that we are making to the nursing profession. All of this is possible only within a budget that is being carefully controlled, and in which priorities are placed on where the money is spent.

Diana R. Johnson: I am sorry; perhaps I should not have been shouting at the Minister from a sedentary position, but I am surprised that he should have come to this House and been unable to answer a basic question about the amount of money that will be lost through the scheme that he wants to introduce. Surely he ought to have those facts at his fingertips when he is standing at the Dispatch Box.

Ben Gummer: I do have those facts at my fingertips. A newly qualified nurse will not be paying any more than he or she is paying under the current system. For those on higher pay rates, the figures are in the consultation document, and if the hon. Lady is not willing to go and look at that herself, I will write to her with the details for her ease and comfort. Opposition Members, rather than picking at points because they refuse to face the fact that they have to fund their commitments with additional money, should listen carefully to the entirety of the reforms that we are proposing.

Diana R. Johnson: rose—

Ben Gummer: I will make some progress now, if the hon. Lady does not mind. We are introducing a new nursing associate grade. This will present an extraordinary opportunity to eradicate one of the great unfairnesses in the NHS, which is that there are brilliant people working as healthcare assistants who are unable to  become registered nurses because they were let down by the schools they went to. I am afraid that this is a consequence of the failure of school reform under the previous Government. Under previous Governments, people were failed to the extent that they have not been given the opportunities that they deserve.
We are going to reverse that situation by providing an apprenticeship ladder to a nursing associate role, and from there to a registered nursing position. A degree apprenticeship will be available to those who are able and competent to reach that grade. That will provide a route of opportunity that was not available under the previous Labour Government. It is being brought in  by this Conservative Government—a one nation party for all.
By bringing in these reforms, creating a nursing associate role and creating 100,000 apprentices in the NHS, many of whom will be healthcare assistants working their way towards a nursing associate position and from there to a registered nursing grade, we will give people multiple opportunities to become nurses. That will include those who are already in the service and who want to earn while they are learning. It will take them between four and a half and six years to get to a registered nursing position from a healthcare assistant role. It will also include those who are able to take time out and do a degree to become a registered nurse, for whom we will provide additional support in the form of increased maintenance grants. Opposition Members are shaking their heads, but at what, I do not know. Are they shaking their heads at the 100,000 NHS apprentices that we are creating? Are they shaking their heads at the nursing associate roles? Are they shaking their heads at the increased maintenance support? None of those were addressed in the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham East.

Richard Graham: Will the Minister give way?

Ben Gummer: I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind if I just conclude my remarks, because I know that Members from across the House want to contribute to the debate.
In my remaining minutes, I want to state why the reform is important not only for the individuals who want to become nurses, and not just for social equality and opportunity, but for the NHS. The NHS is unable to innovate like other parts of our public sector and our private sector because of the long lead times for training people. We do not have the instruments within the NHS to reflect the dramatic changes in demography and technology that change the NHS not year by year, but month by month. The great benefit of bringing in apprenticeship routes and nursing associate roles, of diversifying the skill mix and of creating quicker, more numerous routes into the nursing profession is that we can create a more diverse, flexible and agilely trained workforce.
All that will be possible as a result of the changes, of which this bursary reform is part. None of it would have been possible with the reduction in funding promised by the Labour party, or a failure to wish reform upon the system. That is why I hope the House will reject the motion, which is full of suggestions and implications rather than firm plans. It says nothing about the future of the people on whom the NHS depends, and does  nothing to suggest how we will increase numbers, provide additional maintenance support or, most importantly, provide opportunities for those who have not yet had any. We will do that by reforming the system, just as we did in 2010. We will ensure that we do not listen to the well-intentioned but erroneous voices of the Labour party. Had we listened to them back in 2010, tens of thousands of people would have been denied an opportunity. We are determined not to do that. We will be the party of opportunity, presenting it to people who want to be nurses or hold any other position in the NHS. This NHS will be truly national only if it provides opportunity to the many, not the few.

Lisa Cameron: I must declare an interest due to my work in the NHS and having had the privilege of a grant being available when training to be a doctor.
The NHS is one of our most esteemed public services, but there is a long-standing shortage of qualified healthcare professionals. While the current bursary system for nursing and allied healthcare students in England may not be without issue, the UK Government’s proposed changes are concerning, as is the manner in which they have been presented, with detailed consideration of the impact somewhat lacking.
As we have heard, the UK Government have proposed changes to the current NHS bursary system. Instead, healthcare students will be required to pay tuition fees and will be subject to the same standard loans-based system to which other students in England are subjected. The UK Government have indicated that they expect the reforms to create up to 10,000 additional nursing and health professional training places over the course of the current parliament. However, that appears to be narrow-sighted. The proposed move to a system that relies on students funding themselves by taking on significant debts has raised substantial concerns among unions, professional bodies and students. One of the key fears is that such a move could be a barrier that deters prospective students from entering the profession. I stand here as the first doctor in my family, and I have to say that I would not have considered applying if it had meant racking up debt. I am particularly concerned about access to doctorate courses and postgraduate requirements. Will we create an elite workforce based not on ability, but on means?
Unison estimates that a student undertaking a three-year, 30-week course outside London under the new scheme will graduate with a debt of at least £51,600, plus interest and any overdraft and commercial debt.

Richard Graham: The hon. Lady’s achievement as the first doctor in her family is to be applauded by us all, but does she recognise that there are many people who do not think that university is for them? The two-year apprenticeship course offered by the new nursing associate route will provide them with a real opportunity to get into the NHS and maybe to go on to become a full nurse later on.

Lisa Cameron: I want to see a widening of access to training schemes in the NHS, and I would hope that that would be properly funded and that we do not rely on NHS staff doing other jobs while dealing with the  stress of training. We should invest in and fund them properly, letting them know that NHS staff are invaluable.
For many, loans may be higher due to the additional costs of longer courses or of courses within London. As I said, I am particularly concerned about postgraduate courses and doctorate trainees, who may not be able to afford further loans that will add to their debt. It is likely that debt could be considerably higher for the majority of healthcare students. It is naive to think that larger loans will not be a psychological deterrent, especially to those from poorer or non-university backgrounds or to mature students and career changers, who may have additional financial responsibilities or debts from first degrees or family life.
The demographic of students on nursing, midwifery and allied health professions courses tends to be different from other student populations, as we have heard. They are more likely to be women, from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, parents or mature students. It is therefore likely, and a real concern, that abolishing bursaries will reduce diversity, foster inequalities and discourage potentially high-quality applicants.

Angela Rayner: The hon. Lady is making an important point. Returning to something the Minister said, the frustration for me is that I was a Unison rep in homecare before coming to this place, and we were able to give unqualified women access to a foundation degree when they were healthcare assistants. They could then do a vocational degree and get into hospitals in much the same way as what the Minister claims is not currently available. It is important that that route remains open and that its users, mature students in particular, do not get disadvantaged because of the thousands of pounds-worth of debt that they would take on at the end.

Lisa Cameron: The hon. Lady makes her own point. It is important that people from all backgrounds are encouraged to enter our NHS. The UK has a diverse society and we must ensure that our healthcare staffing system reflects that and supports those from all backgrounds to enter it.
It is not enough just to increase numbers by creating an open market for training. In order to ensure a quality service, it is crucial that student placements are well planned, well supervised and well distributed between the various areas within the service, so much consultation is required. In response to the Government’s proposals, a former chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing commented:
“The last thing we need are disincentives to recruitment. We should be doing everything possible to attract applicants, as the country needs more nurses now than at any other time in its history.”

Christina Rees: The hon. Lady is making many valid points. If someone lives in Wales and wants to study at an English university, it is proposed that the bursary will be stopped. If someone lives in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland and wants to study nursing, midwifery or an allied health profession at a Welsh university, the Labour Welsh Government will pay the bursary. Taking that to its logical conclusion, the numbers will decrease in England and increase in Wales, Scotland  and Northern Ireland. Of most concern is the fact that the UK Government did not commit to undertake an impact assessment of cross-border applications before proceeding with the changes. Does the hon. Lady think that they should have?

Lisa Cameron: Once again, the hon. Lady makes her point very well. I believe we need to staff the NHS well right across the UK. Impact assessments may require consideration down the line if there is a shortage in England as a result of this policy. I hope that answers her question.
In Scotland, the SNP Government recognise the value of investing in our NHS, providing a support package that is hugely generous in comparison with that in England. The nursing and midwifery student bursary in Scotland provides all eligible students with a non-income-assessed and non-repayable personal allowance of £6,578 per year, excluding additional allowances. That can be topped up by a range of income-assessed allowances, and it comes in the context of there being no tuition fees. Therefore, there are other examples of ways to make progress in this policy area.
Under the SNP Government, NHS staff numbers have increased by more than 10,000, and the party is committed to supporting the development of a quality health service that will meet the needs of the Scottish people, not just now, but in the future. Workforce projections show that more than 1,000 extra NHS staff are expected to be recruited across Scotland this year. There has been an 8.4% increase in NHS staffing, to a record high. There are more qualified nurses and midwives per 1,000 of population in Scotland than there are in England and Wales. In the past year, Scotland has seen the total number of nursing and midwifery staff increase by more than 500 whole-time equivalents, with boards projecting an increase of more than 600 whole-time equivalents in this financial year. The number of doctors has increased by 26.7% or by 2,560 whole-time equivalents, and the number of consultants is now at a record high, having increased by 40.3%. Every newly qualified nurse is guaranteed one year of employment once they complete their studies—that commitment is not offered anywhere else in the UK. Our health Minister, Shona Robison, has also confirmed that the nursing and midwifery student bursary and allowance will be protected at existing levels in 2016-17. A review of the scheme is due to report in June 2016.
The NHS is a crucial public service, and the UK Government cannot continue to railroad their way through it. They are making significant changes and although reform may be needed to address current issues within the service, such decisions should not be made hastily and without full consideration of their impact and of potential workable alternatives. We have heard about some workable alternatives today. I therefore urge the Minister to commit to having a comprehensive consultation on the full proposals, to determine the best way to support and invest in this service and its students. This is a vital workforce, whom we depend on in our times of crisis. It is only right therefore that they should be able to depend on us during their training and when they hope to help the NHS in the future.

Natascha Engel: Order. Before I call the first Back-Bench speaker, I should say that we are going to have a time limit of seven minutes to start with. The debate finishes at 4.27 pm and a large number of people wish to speak.

Sarah Wollaston: Let me start by congratulating the shadow Health Secretary on calling this important debate. First and foremost, it matters because of the impact on patients of a nursing workforce shortfall. When the Health Committee’s recent primary care inquiry took evidence, Professor Ian Cumming estimated that shortfall to be between 15,000 and 20,000 nurses. This is not just about the overall shortfall; it is also about shortfalls geographically and in certain key areas, particularly primary care, community care and mental health. We therefore need to look at the big picture.
The workforce shortfall adds costs. We know that the agency staffing bill was about £3.3 billion in the last year and that three quarters of trusts are still breaching the agency price caps, although we are making some progress on that, with the relevant figures being £303 million in October last year and £287 million in February this year. These resources should be spent elsewhere, on patient care. There is an over-dependence on nurses who are trained overseas. They are a very valued part of our workforce but they are often being recruited from countries that can ill afford to lose them. We will need to train more nurses—that is the prime consideration of this debate, along with how we achieve that.
I congratulate the Minister on the proposals to open up many more places to nursing students, but we should consider some unintended consequences and I wish to touch on those further in this debate. We must do this without disadvantaging or cutting off our current core nursing workforce. It is absolutely right that we pay particular attention to the impact on mature students, because we have heard the data on that: 23% of all nursing applicants are over 30; more than half are over 21; and, as the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said, the average age is 28. The question is whether this core mature nursing workforce are going to be deterred from applying.
We have already seen an example of innovation, with the University of Bolton partnering the Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to start offering places where students apply through the UCAS route. They introduced 25 places in the first pilot, with the first intake being in February last year, and there were 650 applicants for those places, even though they knew that they would have to access loans. There has been a very successful second round, with an increase to 75 places this year, and so the assumption that people will simply not apply for these courses just is not correct. We need to bear it in mind that we cannot necessarily extrapolate from there to a wider increase in numbers, but I ask the Minister whether there is any room, as we start to roll this out, to retain some bursaries for our very valued core mature nursing workforce for at least the first few years, until we know what the impact is. Will he address that in his summing up? Is there any role for a period of transition? It is important that we bear in mind the potential for unintended consequences.
Two thirds of those who apply for nursing places are unsuccessful, and it is unreasonable not to increase the opportunity for those students. I very much welcome the Minister’s plan to roll out other opportunities to enter the nursing workforce. We know from the Cavendish review that one reason we lose so many from our core healthcare assistant workforce is because there are no continuing professional development opportunities for them. Very many of those people, whom we know to be fantastic at their job, are not able to progress in the way that we should be allowing them to do. The key focus for us in this House should be: what is best for patients? What is best for patients is for us to train up a more diverse workforce, through many routes. There is a case for saying, “Let’s not completely abolish bursaries in the first round. We could phase things in more slowly.”
Another opportunity we could look at to try to attract people into nursing is through recognising that the clinical component is very high in the nursing course, at about 50%. Is there any way we could recognise that with a limited grants system for those who would otherwise be deterred? Perhaps at the end of a nursing course we could recognise mature students, particularly those who have taken on a second degree. Is there a way we could allow an extra payment to go to those nurses, particularly those who are going to go on to train in specialties where there is a shortage, linked with a period of NHS service. I know that we are using such an approach in general practice to try to attract people into shortage specialties. Would the Minister also consider that in responding to the legitimate concerns about the impact on the mature nursing workforce?
In summary, there are things we are doing where we are making progress, but there are things we can recognise as being unintended consequences. I hope the Minister will also look at some of the other recommendations from the recent Health Committee inquiry on primary care and say, “What can we do, as we increase the number of these courses, to increase the exposure to shortage specialties within the training period?” Too many of our healthcare workforce are staying within acute care and we know that if they have increased exposure to primary care during their training, they are more likely to want to go into those specialities.
Finally, as we increase these other opportunities for nursing and physician associates, may I ask the Minister please to touch on registration? We have heard evidence that, sometimes, not being registered can deter people from taking on physician associates. Allowing those associates to be registered is a recognition of their skills. These should be professional qualifications, and I hope that he will refer to that in his summing up.

Jeff Smith: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), as I have a lot of respect for her. Indeed, she commands respect across the House, and it is important that we listen to her views. It is also important that we listen to the views of others, including those of her colleague the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who said:
“Speaking as a nurse, I would struggle to undertake my nurse training given the proposed changes to the bursary scheme.”—[Official Report, 5 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 15.]
Clearly, the changes have not been thought through.
As a south Manchester MP, I am very proud to represent a large number of Manchester University students, including many of our nurses and midwives of the future. Indeed, the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work at the university was the first institution in England to offer a nursing course, and it remains one of the top 10 universities in the world to study that same degree today. For the 2,000 students currently studying there, as well as for those weighing up their future with healthcare education in mind, the proposals on student bursaries will do nothing to instil any confidence that the Government understand the perspective of student nurses or potential student nurses.
I want to use my brief remarks to raise two main points. The first is the disappointing lack of consultation with organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing, and the second is the effect that this policy will have on potential students and patient care. Ensuring that access to these professions remains fair, that their funding is sustainable and that the Government consult experts from the sector are vital factors in securing the interests and the confidence of future healthcare professionals. Those roles are the lifeblood of our national health service, and we all have a stake in their future.
One big concern that we have consistently raised is the Government’s reluctance to engage with stakeholders. We have heard from charities, representative organisations, and think-tanks that the evidence base for these proposals is at best uncertain, and at worst non-existent. The very real fear is that the proposals will reduce the numbers of people entering nursing studies. Even the 12-week consultation that the Minister was lauding earlier takes the form of a technical questionnaire on the implementation of the proposals rather than a real consultation on the substantive policy.

Richard Graham: On consultation with stakeholders and so on, does the hon. Gentleman agree that when a hospital like the Gloucestershire Royal shows strong support for the concept of nursing associates and wants to run a pilot project for them, we have to assume that it sees real value in those associates in terms of providing good nursing for its patients and my constituents, and that that must be as telling as anything in a formal consultation?

Jeff Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Parliamentary questions have shown that the Department of Health failed to consult the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nursing and Unison before the policy was announced in the autumn statement last year. It is not just the Labour party that is worried about this, but the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nursing, the College of Podiatry, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and the NHS Pay Review Body, as well as Members across the House. It is little surprise, then, that the result fails to understand the unique characteristics of the sector and the hard-working professionals that work in it. This is a process that has been driven by short-term financial savings at the cost of tackling the big questions of how we adequately fund our NHS for the decades to come.
What about the effect of this policy on the nurses and midwives of the future? At the centre of any policy on healthcare education must be the students themselves. In this case, they are diverse: older than most—the average age is 28—and overwhelmingly female. There are greater numbers from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. We should not forget that completing a degree necessitates 2,300 hours of clinical practice over three years. Any legislation that we need to design to encourage students in the future and to guarantee high-quality care for patients must recognise those types of people. They are people like Katie, a nurse in my constituency, who wrote to me about her concerns about the prospect of debt. She said:
“It is particularly worrying for mature students, many of whom have dependants, and it could deter them from joining the profession altogether. I can relate to this as three of my close colleagues are mature students and have stated on multiple occasions that, without the bursary, nursing school would not have been an option. Student nurses are not like other students: 50% of their time is spent on unpaid clinical placements in hospitals and in the community and there are simply not the same opportunities for part-time work as other students. I could not have completed this course without the bursary. Studying nursing requires participation in extra-curricular activities. This is in line with a recent national initiative: revalidation…Therefore, finding time for part-time work becomes very difficult, and many of my friends have been turned away from part-time jobs as our weekly schedules, working shifts and time for completing university work are often sporadic. The bursary covers my rent and without that I would not be able to support myself and nor would my family.”
We need to take such views on board when looking at a new policy.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: Research from the House of Commons has shown that of the net savings made to the Treasury through measures taken by this Government since 2010, 86% will have come from women. Does my hon. Friend agree that these proposals are no different from those we have seen in the junior doctors’ contract dispute, and that they will adversely affect women rather than men?

Jeff Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is important to remember that, and to think about how the prospect of paying off more than £100,000 worth of debt affects the calculation of a mature student looking to study a second time to become a mental health nurse. It is important to think about how a lone parent, who is hoping to become a midwife, might feel the pressure of £59,000 of repayments when considering the future of their family—that is the latest estimate of debt from the Royal College of Midwives.
It is important to wonder how a nursing student, taking part in a 48-week extended course, is expected to find part-time work to make their studies viable. Not only is the Government’s evidence base desperately weak, but research by the Higher Education Funding Council for England tells us that poorer students, lone parents and BME students—the demographics of many of the people attracted to nursing—are disproportionately dissuaded from applying to university by the prospect of large debts.
The policy fails on two fronts. The refusal to engage with experts in the field has led to a misguided policy that makes healthcare education the privilege of those who can afford decades of debt. It fails to ensure fair and equal access to healthcare education. Secondly,  there is a real danger that this policy will fail to achieve its own aim of attracting future students. Everyone in health who knows about these issues will acknowledge the shortages of nurses, midwives and other health professionals, but moving the burden of payment to students is widely seen as a mistake. Deterring potential candidates by promising a lifetime of repayments immediately on graduation cannot be the answer.
I conclude by joining the calls of the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Nursing for the Government to rethink the proposals and to scrap the NHS bursary. We need a thorough and inclusive consultation process so that those with experience of the system are able to contribute properly. I ask Ministers to ensure that future students at Manchester University’s School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work are not forced to bear the burden of a Government unwilling to listen. The Royal College of Nursing has said that the Government have not thought hard enough about the risks. Now is the time to do so.

David Morris: It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), and I congratulate the shadow Health Secretary on securing this debate as it highlights the current pressures that we are facing in the NHS. We start with 20,000 nurses and we lose 3,000 a year. Perhaps that is where the Migration Advisory Committee report gets its figures from when it says that we need to plug a gap of 3,000 places. The Government say that we need 10,000 new nurses a year. In stark terms, those figures show that there is a loss percentage, so perhaps we can work out how many people drop out and what it costs, and use that money in the NHS by putting it back into an apprenticeship scheme such as that proposed by the Government. It seems that the magic figure of 3,000 plays into the Government’s thinking about creating 10,000 new nurses.
The Opposition say that we lost 2,400 nurses under the previous Government, whereas the previous Government said that we have 3,000 more. Which is correct? The truth is that both are: it depends when we take the measurement. If we measure from election to election—that is, from May 2010 to May 2014—we find that the Prime Minister was correct to say that we have 3,000 new nurses. We also take into consideration health visitors and midwives, and physiotherapists to an extent. The Opposition say there was a drop of 2,400 between September 2010 and September 2014. Believe it or not, recruitment and loss are seasonal.
We have to be grown up and address these concerns. How do we do that? The answer is, quite simply, through reform. We must open up instead of having the fixed bursaries whereby we attract in the region of 20,000 nurses a year but lose 3,000 a year. I say this with all due respect to the Opposition, but under the previous Government the Opposition said that reforming education would deter people from all backgrounds—I would not say “disadvantaged” backgrounds—from going to university. I did not go to university, but my son is at university and is the first member of my family ever to go to university. That is an aspiration, and an accolade. Here we are, five years down the line, with 10,150 new places since 2010 for students going to university. We must open up that philosophy for the NHS.
What is the difference between a student nurse starting on £21,000 or thereabouts a year and a junior doctor starting on £26,000? Nurses are as valued as doctors in the NHS; I certainly feel that. Why do some have bursaries, even though we are not attracting the numbers, and why do some not have them? My own trust, which is in difficulty at the moment but has already overcome many difficulties and is out of administration—it should be praised for that—has been abroad recruiting nurses, but we could get the nurses by taking away the bursary scheme and opening it up to academia, trying to get more people in from inside the system through apprenticeships. That could plug the gap and allow us to have home-grown skills and jobs here.
Reform will plug the gap and solve the skill shortage. It will also be fair in bringing nurses into line with doctors in the profession. Mature students who want to go into the vocation of nursing and be correctly accredited through the academic route will see that as a good starting place for a career that starts at £21,000. In all honesty, the career path does not end at £21,000; it goes up the pay scale, as it does for doctors.
In conclusion, I thank all colleagues for this measured debate. This is a subject that we need to address on both sides of the House.

Wes Streeting: I thank the shadow Health Secretary and the shadow Health team for securing this important debate this afternoon, which effectively gives us the opportunity to debate early-day motion 1081, which is set to become the most popular early-day motion in this Session of Parliament. It has been signed by Members from across the House, including Government Members, because of the concerns that people have bravely shown about the potential consequences of the Government’s proposed decision on the NHS bursary.
As I have argued before in Adjournment debates on the Floor of the House and in Westminster Hall, what we are debating this afternoon is the biggest shake-up in the funding of nursing, midwifery and allied health subjects since 1968. It was announced, without adequate evidence and planning, as part of the Chancellor’s Budget rather than being a carefully thought-through policy proposal; that is why the Government are consulting people only through a technical consultation rather than through a consultation of all stakeholders on the principle of the policy, as they ought to have done.
Although I and others will refer to “student nurses and midwives” as shorthand, it is important to acknowledge, as my hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary did, that this will affect students of all sorts of subjects and vital workers being trained in a range of aspects of the NHS—physiotherapists, occupational therapists, chiropodists, dieticians, podiatrists, radiographers, paramedics, prosthetists and others. That is why more than 100 right hon. and hon. Members signed the early-day motion and thousands of members of the public have spoken out through the online petition.
At present, nursing, midwifery and allied health subjects are not subject to tuition fees and students on these courses receive a non-means-tested grant of up to £1,000 a year as well as a means-tested bursary of up to £3,191 a year. That recognises that students of these subjects have to work considerably long hours during their  courses—not just in the libraries and lecture theatres like most students, but on clinical practice as part of a full 24-hour care cycle. Indeed, it is estimated that student nurses work at least 2,300 hours across the course of their degree. I am not sure that many of us with degrees in this House could claim to have put in so many hours when we were at university. We should recognise the effort that such students need to make to secure their qualifications.
Those who work outside course hours to fund their degrees can end up working up to 60 hours, and we should not expect them to do so: it can have a deleterious impact not just on their academic studies but on their approach to clinical practice. Under the Government’s proposals, the changes will mean that students of these subjects will be charged tuition fees in excess of £9,000 a year and, as a result, will be burdened with £51,600 of debt. They will begin paying that back as soon as they graduate, which means that nurses will take on average a pay cut of £900 a year.
As if that were not unacceptable enough on its own, will the Minister explain when he winds up how it can possibly be fair that under the proposed approach there is no recognition in the student support system of the unique demands placed on these students? The NHS bursary, as it exists, alongside the tuition fee remissions that these students effectively receive, at least recognise that for many of the students it is difficult, if not impossible, to take on the sorts of part-time work that I did when I was studying, either during my A-levels at McDonald’s or during university at the now-defunct Comet. For those students, is simply not possible to fund their degrees in that way.
The student support system should recognise that it is more expensive to study these subjects and that the opportunities to earn extra income on top of taking the courses are not as readily available as they are for other students. It is a real mistake for the Government not to recognise that in their plan.

Sarah Wollaston: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that there is a serious problem with hardship on the existing bursaries, particularly given that the amount of the bursary drops in the final year?

Wes Streeting: I am grateful for that intervention. I shall come on to thank some of the people who have been in touch, but I will never forget the very first conversation I had with a student nurse in my constituency who sat with me in the Members’ area of Portcullis House and cried because under the existing system she struggled to meet the costs of training to be a nurse, even with the NHS bursary currently provided.
I want the student support system to be more generous for these students because other students like my constituent have dreamed of being a student nurse. It is not right that financial support, or the lack of it, should be a barrier to their taking on this valuable vocation, which does so much for so many.
The Government’s policy is riddled with risk. Earlier the Minister challenged my assertions on mature student numbers. It is a fact that in the wake of the introduction of the coalition’s reforms to higher education, there was a fall in part-time and mature student numbers. The  Minister claimed that there were record numbers of mature applicants to higher education; I can only assume that he was referring to last year’s figures. We should not identify a trend from one year’s figures, not least because UCAS figures for the 2016 application cycle published on 4 February 2016 show an increase in 18-year-old applicants, but a fall in most other older age group categories. I am more than happy to look at the data and conduct an evidence-based debate, but let us have an evidence-based debate and not take one year’s worth of figures and claim that there is some sort of trend.

David Morris: The figures that the hon. Gentleman cites are welcome, but they are different from those of the shadow Health Secretary.

Wes Streeting: No, I do not disagree at all with the figures cited by my hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary. This is the problem with lies, damned lies and statistics, as Disraeli once said. We need to look at all the data in the round before we identify trends. The Minister singled out one year’s worth of application data to identify a trend.
It is also entirely possible that numbers relating to nursing, midwifery and allied health subjects account for a significant proportion of applicants to higher education and mature applicants to higher education. The Minister was talking about general applications for all subjects. We should probably ask the Library to do some work so that we can get to the bottom of the claims and counterclaims. None the less, most people involved in the higher education debate acknowledge that there are still serious challenges in access to higher education for part-time and mature applicants in the light of the coalition’s reforms. That is one of the reasons why the Government ought to tread carefully in this area.
Against this backdrop, there is a shortage of nurses. In 2011 and 2012 the number of training places was cut to the lowest level since the 1990s. Unison, the trade union of which I am proud to be a member, conducted a survey which found that two thirds of nurses believe that staffing levels were worse now than they were previously, and 63% feel that the numbers are inadequate to provide a safe degree of support on wards. That reflects feedback that I have had from NHS staff in my constituency, and it is something that the Government should take very seriously.
Since I first raised the issue in an Adjournment debate in the House, I have been privileged to meet so many nurses, midwives, other professionals and students of allied health subjects. I am particularly grateful for the campaigning that Danielle Tiplady and Kat Barber have undertaken, not least in meeting the Minister. I thank Unison, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, and the National Union of Students. I take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to the outgoing president, Megan Dunn, for the effective way in which she has represented students during her term in office.
The reforms reflect a big risk to nursing numbers. At the very least the Minister should commit this afternoon that there will be a further full debate on the Floor of the House and a vote of both this House and the other  place before such a radical change as the Government propose is made to the funding of these crucial subjects. There is considerable concern and the Minister should not downplay the issue. I hope he will at least commit to a full vote in the House before the change goes ahead.

Peter Lilley: It is a pleasure to follow on from the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who made a thoughtful speech and highlighted an important point about the different study load of those training to be nurses, compared with some of us when we were at university. I do not think that that invalidates the Government’s proposals, but it is an important point to take into account.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I congratulate the Opposition spokesman on calling the debate, which has been an important one, and I congratulate the Minister on a characteristically thoughtful, reasonable and lucid response to it. I cannot help observing that the debate demonstrates the value of having people in this House who come from genuine professions, rather than having reached here purely as a result of being political professionals. There has been considerable input from those who have studied, worked or been in the national health service.
Although it is an Opposition debate, there are some points that we can all agree on. First, we should agree that we need to recruit, train and retain enough nurses to staff our health service to meet the needs of the British people. Secondly, we can agree that it is wrong—morally wrong—to rely on recruiting nurses from poor countries, who have had to bear the cost of their training, to meet our failure to train enough nurses ourselves. Thirdly, we should not be turning away British people who want to train as nurses when we need more nurses. Surely all of us can agree on those three points. We can debate how best we finance the recruitment, retention and motivation of sufficient nurses in this country, but we should all agree that that is the objective.
My initial interest in this topic came a couple of decades ago and resulted from my first career as a development economist working in Africa and Asia. I discovered while I was in the House that we were denuding Africa of nurses. We had recruited more than one in eight of all the nurses in sub-Saharan Africa and brought them to this country. That could not be right. I lobbied against it and the then Prime Minister promised that there would be no active recruitment from Africa, but seven years later I discovered that we had recruited another 60,000 nurses. We were continuing to recruit at several thousand a year, but we were promised that that would cease.
What I blame myself for is that it took me so long to realise that the problem did not lie so much in recruiting from Africa and other poor parts of the world as in our failure in this country to train enough nurses of our own. I did not ask why we were not doing so until I was talking to people in my local NHS, who told me that they were recruiting abroad, mainly in southern Europe but also in Asia, and they were doing so despite the fact that they would have preferred to recruit and employ nurses from the University of Hertfordshire, whom they described as excellent, well trained and in every way desirable. I asked why they did not recruit more, but they said that they could not recruit enough. Even if  they recruited the next several years’ worth of output, that would not meet the needs of Hertfordshire’s health service, which is why they were recruiting abroad.

Lisa Cameron: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is ironic that through our international aid programmes we are assisting developing countries to pay for trainee placements in clinical establishments such as hospitals abroad, yet we do not afford the same rights to our NHS trainees here?

Peter Lilley: It is certainly bizarre that we pay African countries to train nurses and promptly recruit them to come here, so we are getting them cheaply trained abroad. I do not mind particularly the manner in which their training is financed.
The problem faced by my local NHS was that it could not get enough nurses from the University of Hertfordshire. I spoke to the University of Hertfordshire, which said that there was no lack of applicants—it turned away three quarters of applicants to its highly regarded nursing courses—but it was not allowed to expand. It had taken me decades in this House to realise that we had a system that limited the number of people we were recruiting. I duly lobbied the Government, and it may be because of my lobbying that we now have this proposal for bursaries, though I suspect the Government reached the decision on their own evidence.
The sad truth is that successive Ministers of all parties—we should recognise that—have bucked the question of how we train enough people in this country. Ministers tend to have a time horizon of roughly the time it takes to train a nurse, so why put up with diverting resources into training when the output of extra nurses will come after they have ceased to be Health Ministers? I am glad that this Secretary of State for Health and his fellow Ministers have addressed the question. However, we should recognise that it is symptomatic of a wider problem across British business in both the private and the public sector that we have a culture that does not put enough emphasis on training. It is particularly bizarre that we allow unlimited numbers of people in universities to study art history and media studies—very valuable subjects—but restrict the numbers who can train to be nurses, when we know we have a crying and desperate need for more.
I am agnostic about the best way to finance the training of more nursing recruits. Clearly, if nurses bear the extra cost, that will have to be reflected in some way in their remuneration. The Minister told us that they will actually be no worse off, so I suppose the assumption is that they will not have to repay much of their loans. It is a somewhat artificial feature of the public finance rules, but it is a feature of them, that perhaps the only way of not borrowing the money from the public ourselves is for the nurses to borrow it and for us then to write off their loans. However, whatever the financial system—the end of bursaries and their replacement with loans is probably the only option—we have to pay nurses enough in the long run to recruit, retain and motivate them.
There is one other issue we should look at before we close the debate. There are 200,000 trained nurses who maintain themselves on the register at their own expense, but who are not currently working in the NHS or elsewhere—they may be taking time off to raise a family, and they may be thinking about coming back  some time. We must be much more flexible and creative about providing patterns of work that meet the family needs of those trained, valuable, caring and experienced people if we are to bring them back into the health service. That, too, will help to meet the needs of the health service, as the Government are trying to, sensibly and wisely, in the measures they have brought before us to replace bursaries with loans.

Colleen Fletcher: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to today’s important debate. This is the second time I have raised concerns about the Government’s plans to scrap NHS bursaries in favour of a loans-based system for nursing, midwifery and allied health profession students, and it follows my contribution to a Westminster Hall debate on the same subject in January. I do not propose to reiterate in their entirety the arguments I put forward; instead, I intend to make just a few brief observations on the Government’s proposals, which have been roundly condemned by students, trade unions and professional bodies alike. They have been described by one of those bodies—the Royal College of Nursing—as “high risk”. The proposals are high risk because they take a significant gamble with the future sustainability of the NHS workforce. There are several reasons for that.
First, the proposals have the potential to deter many committed and talented prospective students from pursuing nursing, midwifery and allied health profession degrees altogether. That is due primarily to concerns over the huge level of debt associated with the change to a loans-based system. That is particularly true for more debt-averse mature students, who may have young families, caring responsibilities and a mortgage to pay, and for those for whom healthcare is a second degree.
There is a considerable problem with recruitment and retention of staff in the NHS, and the Government’s plans are likely to exacerbate that problem, so impacting adversely on the future security of the NHS workforce. This is at a time when we have an ageing and increasing population, which will require more, not fewer, front-line healthcare professionals.
Secondly, the proposals do not take into consideration the fact that nursing, midwifery and allied health profession courses are very different from most arts and science degrees. These courses are much longer, with shorter holidays, and they offer fewer opportunities for students to supplement their incomes, as people are required to spend a significant amount of time working with patients in clinical practice, with a requirement to work irregular and long evening and weekend shifts as standard. Effectively, the Government’s proposals will mean that these students—the individuals who keep our wards running and who are involved in life-and-death decisions on a daily basis—are forced to pay for the privilege of undertaking often physically and emotionally demanding work in the NHS.
Thirdly, the proposals seek to replace the bursary system, which has, for some considerable time now, fostered strong and enduring links between healthcare students and the NHS right from the start of their course. The Government propose severing that link, which risks reducing students’ loyalty to, and the attractiveness of, the NHS as a potential employer.
Those are just a few of the reasons why the Government’s plans are so high risk. There are, of course, many more, some of which have been eloquently articulated by others in the House today. I conclude by urging Ministers to drop their proposals and instead work with trade unions, professional bodies and, most importantly, the dedicated individuals who work in the NHS—the nurses, midwives, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, dieticians, radiographers, chiropodists and podiatrists—to find a fairer, more sustainable and effective funding solution.

Andrew Murrison: May I start by declaring my interest as a member of a healthcare profession allied to nursing?
Two thirds of those who apply for nursing school places are rejected and have to look at other trades or professions—that is tens of thousands of people every year. Despite the comments of some hon. Members, those are good, high-quality applicants. I took the trouble of looking at the entry requirements of the three universities that accept adult candidates on to general nursing degree courses in the south-west—Bournemouth University, the University of the West of England and Plymouth University. The typical offer is 300 UCAS points—three Bs at A-level—so there is not a shortage of applicants who are academically well-qualified and, indeed, qualified in every way. Lots of young men and women who wish to study nursing and to be nurses are being turned away.
That is a double tragedy because we have a gross shortage of nurses in this country, and nothing I have heard from the Opposition gives me any confidence that they have any plan as to how we are to satisfy the two imperatives of allowing those who want to study nursing to do so and of plugging the shortage in our national health service. At the moment, I am afraid, we are able to deal with that issue only because nurses from overseas are prepared to come here—nurses, very often, from countries that can scarcely do without them.
Historically, student nurses have been an intrinsic part of the NHS workforce. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) will remember, as do I, that they were essential to the working of hospital wards, and one or two of the good points made by Opposition Members revolve around that issue. The question is whether, in this day and age, we are still heavily reliant on that workforce for the proper functioning of hospital wards. If we are, there is a good case to be made for allowing for that in the bursary arrangements for student nurses, because it is simply not right to expect those people to do service work and not be compensated in some way for it. I hope very much that that strand of thought will be taken up as part of the consultation.
However, the fact remains that as part of Project 2000 in the 1990s, the nursing profession decided to move away from a hospital-based training structure to a structure based around universities—that was driven by the profession itself. The debate we are having today is part of that process—the process by which nurses become graduates, in exactly the same way as anyone else, including those who are preparing, for example, to teach in schools.
When we design the finances for student nurses, it is of course important that we understand the difference between a nursing degree course and a normal degree course, as it were. We must also accept that this is a graduate profession, and that it is not right to try—as I think the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who speaks for the Opposition, did—to distinguish between graduates and to say that one graduate is more worthy than another. She may have in mind a view of a typical graduate, but those graduates are also potential teachers, engineers, biomedical scientists, and all the rest. We start down a very difficult path if we try to hold up one graduate as being superior morally, or in some other sense, to others. That is a very difficult thing to sustain.
I very much support the notion of a nursing associate. I am old enough to remember state-enrolled nurses. These were nurses who would not satisfy the entry criteria for a course leading to state registration but wanted to be members of a caring occupation. Naturally enough, nursing associates will not be SENs revisited, because we now live in a very different age, but there is surely a place within healthcare and our national health service for a group of people who may not want the academic rigour that goes with a nursing degree—or indeed be fitted for it, at their stage of life—but who nevertheless want to nurse, and to enter an intrinsically hands-on, caring occupation. The important difference, though—this is where SENs, I am afraid, suffered so badly all those years ago—is that there must be a sufficiently pervious system to allow nursing associates, if they want to and have the necessary skill sets, to enter a professional nursing stream. It was a tragedy that so many well-qualified SENs were unable to develop their careers in that way. I hope that as we design the future for nursing, we keep that very much in mind.
A few hon. Members have commented on workforce planning. Historically, the NHS has been absolutely abysmal in this regard, and we need to do much better in future. We need to avoid unintended consequences of the changes that we are making. We need to ensure that the £21,000 threshold that would apply for nursing graduates does not mean that people are inclined to avoid it by working part time where they might otherwise work more full-time hours. That would be a great disservice to the overall workforce.
The 10,000 new places created must not be denuded by our offering them to applicants from overseas, because that would not be in the interests of our national health service. We need to understand that nursing graduates may be tempted to migrate as a result of the introduction of these fees. I ask the Minister, in his consultation, to think of all the unintended consequences that may develop, given our general historical tradition in this country of doing health workforce planning so abysmally.

Nicholas Dakin: It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful contribution by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who draws attention to the whole issue of workforce planning, which is clearly very challenging for those who are doing it—or not doing it.
The recent inspection of North Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust exposed issues of real concern about staffing levels at Scunthorpe  general hospital. The challenge of attracting, securing and retaining sufficient nurses and other medical staff has been a constant theme in my conversations with the trust since 2010. In that respect, Scunthorpe hospital is no different from many others around the country. The more I have got involved, the more I have thought that locally designed solutions have a role to play. Having talked to Health Education England, it is disappointing that it cannot do more to support healthcare assistants, for instance, in growing into nurses on the local patch, because they are clearly a potential resource.
There are lots of issues about recruitment, training and retention, as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said, and about how, if we lose 3,000 nurses a year, as the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) said, we try to keep them. That is a big issue, as well as how we recruit and retain them.

David Morris: Just to clarify that, we are not losing 3,000 nurses a year—we are losing 3,000 applicants to be nurses a year.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but many nurses are being lost to the system as well, as his comments clearly highlighted.
In Scunthorpe, as in other areas, we are having to recruit from Spain, Portugal and elsewhere in the world. Although that is helping and supporting us, it has impacts, as we have heard, on those areas of the globe from where those nurses are being recruited.
I would like to quote the words of a young student nurse—a constituent—because in some ways they capture the comments that people from around the country are making to us. Katie-May Taylor says:
“I’m a first year student nurse and when I start placement (for 3 months), I will just about be able to cover my travel on top of my rent and food. When you see the hours we have to complete and having a fraction of the summer holidays other students get, you have to understand why the proposed cuts to the bursary and overall funding to the NHS isn’t beneficial.
I appreciate that to other students, getting a monthly bursary must seem like a luxury, however every penny I get goes towards my rent—it’s not just pocket money.
We’re seeing reports that parents are already telling their children not to go into the nursing profession and future nurses are being scared out of applying for university. This is deeply saddening; it’s such a wonderful course to be a part of and our nurses are absolutely vital in the care of society’s health and the maintenance of OUR NHS.
If the bursary is scrapped, a lot of student nurses will end up working 70 plus hours a week (placement, study time, job/s). Is a student nurse working that many hours a week safe patient care?”
Those words capture very effectively the concerns that we have.
The Government are taking a huge gamble with the future of the NHS workforce and patient safety. There is already a shortage of nurses in the NHS, and scrapping bursaries risks making the recruitment and retention of staff even harder. Student nurses are not like other students: they are required to work in clinical practice throughout their degrees, and they deserve to be treated differently. The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire was right to say that it is worth looking at how much they are an intrinsic part of the NHS, and if they are, that must be recognised within the consultation so that they are given credit and remunerated effectively for it.  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) rightly emphasised the unique position of student nurses.
The longer courses and clinical placements make it harder for NHS students to get part-time jobs to supplement their income. NHS students are much more likely to be women, more likely to come from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, and more likely to be mature students. Many nursing students have already completed one degree and turned to nursing in their late 20s or early 30s. The average age of a student nurse is 28. Many student nurses have family or caring commitments. MillionPlus has pointed out that the changes to the higher education funding system in 2012 have been much less favourably received by mature students and part-time students. Those two groups make up a much greater proportion of the nursing, midwifery and allied health student body, so it is worth looking at that part of the evidence as well.
Analysis by London Economics estimates that the switch to loans will have a significant negative impact of minus 5% on participation, at least initially, especially if one bears in mind the composition of the student health cohort. The Government’s insistence that undergraduate and postgraduate loans will be repaid at the same time will require a repayment rate of 15% above the earnings threshold for those students accessing both undergraduate and postgraduate loans. That will be in addition to any tax, national insurance and pension contributions that will be due.
The savings to the taxpayer are questionable. The Minister was not clear about that when I pressed him on it during his opening remarks. The Department of Health estimate that taxpayers will be better off as a result of the switch is very much a short-term calculation. In fact, it is much less likely that these students will repay their loans as graduates in the 30-year repayment period than the general higher education cohort. Essentially this is a switch in responsibility for the funding of the education of the health workforce from the state to the workforce itself, and it is primarily designed to reduce the departmental budget of the Department of Health.
We need to know more about what estimate the Government have made of the percentage of second degree student loans that will be written off after a 30-year period. We need the Department of Health to provide an estimate of by how much the taxpayer will be better off. We need those figures.
All the key stakeholders have expressed concern, including the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nursing, the College of Podiatry and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. Even the NHS Pay Review Body has said that
“the removal of the incentive of the bursary could have an unsettling effect on the number and quality of applications for nursing training places in the early years.”
Those who are closest to what is going on are all concerned.
The Minister for Community and Social Care is a very good and thoughtful Minister, and I am sure that he is concerned about the issue. I hope that he will listen to and engage with all those bodies, which know what they are talking about. They are not making it up—their  concerns are real and genuine. The Royal College of Nursing is calling on the Government to work with all stakeholders to create a model of student funding that encourages people to join the profession and that recognises the unique aspects of nursing degree courses.
I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to engage with the strong initiative proposed by the shadow Health Secretary and work together to come up with a solution that will allow us not only to recruit professionals, but to retain them into the future. As the son of a nurse and the father of a speech and language therapist, I hope that the Government are listening.

Mark Spencer: Welcome to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am glad that your first act has been to call me to speak.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for whom I have a great deal of respect. He always speaks with credibility and from experience. I am more than happy to acknowledge that there are many colleagues in the House with more experience than I have of working in the NHS, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). My experience is as a customer or as a relative of someone who has been treated in the health service. I have to say that, to date, my experience has been nothing but positive. The treatment that our NHS continues to deliver to our nation is the best in the world, and Government Members can be immensely proud of that.
One of the things that I find most frustrating about our debates on the health service is the fact that the Opposition seem to think that they have a monopoly on caring for the NHS. Nothing could be further from the truth. Conservative Members care deeply about our health service and we do everything we can to support it.
It is worth saying that every Labour party election leaflet since the second world war has said, “We’ve got 24 hours to save the NHS before the Tories come into government.” It repeats that message every time. If we look at the facts, however, we will see that the truth is that the Prime Minister was the only party leader to enter the 2010 general election saying that he would protect the NHS budget. Others did not. In 2015, the Prime Minister was the only party leader who committed to the extra £8 billion support funding for the NHS when other Opposition parties would not back that figure. Today that figure has increased: this party is now backing the NHS with an extra £10 billion. We are also delivering on the aspiration of people like me, who are either customers or relatives of people who use the NHS, to get a high-quality service seven days a week.
Whenever we debate this issue, the difference between the two parties is one of credibility. The only way we have been able to deliver the extra £10 billion of funding to the health service is by having a credible economic plan that stands up to scrutiny. The great British public understand that and what it means to have a credible plan that can be delivered in government.
As a number of colleagues have said, we agree on a lot of things. No one can deny that both the Government and the Opposition acknowledge that we need more nurses, but we differ on the credible plan to deliver  them. Members on both sides of the Chamber have made speeches today acknowledging the need to deliver extra nurses, but it is only Government Members who have a credible plan to make it happen. We cannot just hope it happens, or state that it will happen, without saying where the extra money will come from. The consequence of that would be to withdraw cash from front-line services, such as existing doctors, nurses, operating theatres and wards, and put it into training.
If we want to increase the number of nurses coming into the NHS, we should not restrict the number who can be trained. It seems obvious that the way to raise the number of nurses is to lift the artificial cap on the number that we can train. I welcome the fact that the Government are considering and consulting on their options and looking to ensure that there is no artificial cap, so that we can train as many people as are inspired to go into the nursing profession.
I reiterate my admiration for those people. People leaving full-time education enter nursing not because they want to be rich but because they care and they see it as a vocation. We need to support people who have that calling and who aspire to look after those in society who find themselves ill and in need of support. We must find a system that allows them to aspire to that, whatever their background and wherever they come from. They must be able to go through their training and reach the point where they can follow their vocation.
The arguments that are being deployed against the Government’s suggestions appear similar to the ones that we heard about student loans. We were told that those from a deprived background or from more challenging areas would be put off and would not be able to find a way through the system. We need to reflect on the evidence, which shows that the opposite has happened—the number of people from challenging backgrounds going to university has gone up, even though we were told that they would not be able to go.
At the end of the process, we need an NHS that can adapt and change. There is enormous social pressure on it, and there is the challenge of getting a balance between adult social care and healthcare as society gets older. When cash is short, we must spend it on front-line services—on the doctors, nurses and drugs that can improve the lives of people who need the support of the NHS. I look forward to the consultation, and I know that the team in the Department of Health will look at the responses. I hope that we get to the right place, and that we have more nurses at the end of the process.

Margaret Greenwood: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) values the NHS so highly, but he might like to reflect on the fact that the coalition Government legislated to allow all NHS hospitals to make up to 49% of their money from private patients. Perhaps he will review his opinion of his party’s performance when he starts to see the number of private patients in his local hospital increase and the number of NHS patients decrease.
The Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives are concerned that abolishing nurse bursaries and free tuition will break the historic link between the NHS and trainee nurses. I share their concern, and I believe that the Government’s proposal is part and parcel of wider changes that they are seeking to make to  the culture of the NHS. They are turning the emphasis away from training people to be part of the NHS family, in which they can work with dedication throughout their working lives, towards training them to work in a fragmented health marketplace. If the plans go ahead, the nurses of the future may no longer feel the same obligation to work in the NHS and could be more inclined to work abroad or in private hospitals to pay off their debt. Who could blame them? They will feel that the Government have deserted them.
The Minister was unable to tell us what the average repayment would be, so I will let the union Unison give him the answer. It states that debt repayment will effectively mean a pay cut of more than £900 a year. The question arises of whether the changes will deter people from training to be nurses in the first place. The Royal College of Nursing and other bodies such as the Royal College of Midwives, the College of Podiatry and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists think that they will. The Government’s own consultation document estimates that a trainee nurse who takes out the maximum tuition and maintenance loans for three years will graduate with debts of between £47,712 and £59,106. Who would want to embark on a lifetime of caring for others with a debt of that size?
That brings us to the concern that the measures will lead to further shortages. We are all aware of the shortages in our hospitals. The coalition Government allowed the number of training places to fall from more than 20,000 to just 17,000 in 2011 and 2012, the lowest level since the 1990s. As a result, over 8,000 fewer nurses were trained in the 2010-15 Parliament compared with 2010-11. Those cuts in training places have meant that nurse numbers have failed to keep pace with demand. According to calculations by the House of Commons Library, the number of nurses per 100,000 population has fallen from 679 in 2009 to 665.
There are real concerns that removing NHS bursaries will only make matters worse. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), the independent NHS Pay Review Body has said that
“the removal of the incentive of the bursary could have an unsettling effect on the number and quality of applications for nursing training places in the early years. In addition, the reduction of net pay in the early years, as nurses repay their loans, will make the employment package and medium to long term reward offer an important factor in attracting high calibre students who are choosing between courses and career options.”
The Secretary of State should definitely focus on that.
The Royal College of Nursing is also concerned that there is a risk that the changes could result in an uneven distribution of students across nursing specialties and geographically across the UK. Health Education England currently commissions student places for four branches of nursing: adult, children, learning disabilities and mental health. Without workplace planning by a central body, there could be insufficient numbers across the four branches, as some may be more popular than others. There has been no indication of whether there will be any control over which sectors nurses train for in future or whether that will simply be determined by—of course, under this Government—the market. That could leave some sectors with even greater shortages than at present.
Tuition is currently paid for by Health Education England. Under the current system, no students have to pay tuition fees and fees are not means-tested. Students  also receive a non-means-tested grant of £1,000, or £1,000 pro rata for part-time students. Students also qualify for a maintenance grant or bursary, which is means-tested, as well as additional allowances when a term lasts longer than 30 weeks, and help with the costs of clinical placements. I believe that that is the appropriate way to deliver NHS nurse training. If we are to continue to have a state-run public NHS, free at the point of need, we must continue to provide bursaries for our NHS nurses. It is the very least that we owe them.

Helen Whately: If we ask any patients about their experience in hospital, one thing they are sure to talk about is the nurses who looked after them. In doing so, they are usually talking about both nurses and healthcare assistants—in my experience, patients do not tend to make a distinction. We know that nurses have far more interaction with patients, day to day, than with doctors. Nurses’ quality and time are absolutely critical to patients’ experience.
Nurses are also critical to outcomes for hospital patients. Good nursing can be the difference between life and death. We have known that since Florence Nightingale, we were reminded of it by the inquiry into Mid Staffordshire and the Francis report, and we can see it from recent research into stroke outcomes. It will be clear to anyone who has looked at how Salford Royal has such good outcomes and such a good reputation—a lot of that is because of the focus on extraordinarily high standards of nursing.
The excellent NHS that I believe we all want needs excellent nurses. It also needs enough of them. This afternoon, people have talked about how we need something in the order of perhaps 10,000 to 20,000 more nurses—the numbers range widely. We also know that we need a shift in nursing skills, as we will need more nursing care for older people and people with long-term conditions, as well as more mental health nurses.
Right now, however, there are not enough nurses in our system, and hospitals across the country have vacancies. We know that they use large numbers of agency staff, and international recruitment is important to many hospitals, including those serving my constituents in Kent. I am not confident that more of the same will solve the problems, and neither was the nursing department of a London university that I spoke to last year. It said that it needed more funding per nurse place, but recognised that asking for more money for their nurses could mean taking money from front-line care in the NHS. That was not a good answer, and the department was open to a new funding model.
Last summer, the Council of Deans of Health and Universities UK stated that the
“current funding system is no longer working for either students or universities.”
Universities have to subsidise the cost of nursing and physio degrees from other courses, and NHS-funded nursing students have less to live on than others, even though they often study longer, more intense degrees with more hours, and are therefore even less able to do other work outside their qualification. We know that we need more nurses, and that the current funding system is not working.
How should we get more nurses? Around 2008-09, when plans were being drawn up for the Centre for Workforce Intelligence, I remember hearing that the answer was better workforce planning, with lots of skilled experts doing fabulous modelling of future workforce demands. I remember being a sceptic about that then, because when we consider the history of the NHS, and systems around the world that have centralised planning for the healthcare workforce, we find that it is almost always wrong. There are periods of over-supply and of under-supply—right now, we are in a period of under-supply, with all its knock-on consequences. Doing things better and having more experts sounds great in theory, but in practice we have seen that it does not work.
A much better answer is to set universities free to offer more places to all those students who, as we have heard, want to study nursing but are currently being turned away. I hope that we will have more nursing applicants, and that that career will become even more attractive, particularly as universities work more closely with employers on what is needed, and we must consider more of the specialist skills and expertise required within nursing by our care system now and in future.
To do that we must uncouple the funding of nurse training from the NHS, and take away the constraint that every £1 spent on training an NHS nurse is £1 potentially taken from front-line care, because that puts a premium on avoiding excess nurses. That is the right direction of travel, and it is also important to increase maintenance grants for nurses so that they do not struggle with their living costs as currently happens. There should be more routes into nursing. The nurse associate role is welcome, as is the apprenticeship route so that nurses can work and train in parallel. We know that that is appealing to more mature students who need an income and who want to be more hands-on during their training, and for whom a university environment has less appeal. Having worked for some time with healthcare assistants, I would like more recognition to be given to their role and qualifications, and I recognise the opportunity to support them even more to train to become qualified nurses.
We must invest more in continuous professional development for nurses. We know that we need a more flexible workforce that can adapt to future demands, yet in times of financial pressure, the investment and time given to ongoing training are often squeezed. Let us use this opportunity to try to shift that balance, and repurpose the workforce to meet the system’s demands and needs.
I would also like more attention paid to the appeal of nursing and the experiences of nurses in work. I have heard many nurses on the frontline say, “This weekend, I’ll be on my own—I will be the only permanent nurse on this ward. I will be working alongside agency nurses who do not necessarily know this ward, and it will make this weekend really difficult.” We badly need to put an end to that. The only way to do that, alongside the ongoing work to reduce the use of agency staff, is to increase the number of nurses who have been trained to work in the NHS.
I am out of time, but to sum up I think the direction of travel is absolutely right. Let us make sure that we  get the details right on how the proposals are put  into practice.

Gavin Newlands: I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate; I only hope that my somewhat scratchy throat holds out. With that in mind I have curtailed my remarks, and, with apologies to colleagues, I will not be taking interventions.
My contribution today marks the third occasion on which I have spoken on this issue and called on the Government to keep the NHS bursary for students in England who are studying to become the next generation of nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. The bursary is absolutely vital to ensure enough people are able to start and complete a nursing degree: the Royal College of Nursing and the BMA say so—and, perhaps more importantly, my sister says so. Luckily for student nurses in Scotland, the Scottish National party also says so.
I am very much aware that this debate is about the removal of the bursary offered to students in England; however, the SNP has said that it will be an ally to progressive voices in this place fighting Tory austerity. The Scottish Government provide bursary support, and will continue to do so. We want that same level of support to be offered to all eligible nursing students, regardless of where they study. As well as receiving representations from my sister, I have met nursing students based at my local university, the University of the West of Scotland. UWS helps to train and educate 4,000 nursing students, one of the largest cohorts in Scotland. It does a fantastic job in helping to equip tomorrow’s health workers with the skills, education and qualifications they need when working on the ward.
It has been over five months since I posed a question on this very issue to the Chancellor, when he stood in at Prime Minister’s questions. Unfortunately, his answer did not provide the commitment that nursing students were demanding. After a few months of contemplation, and notwithstanding the Health Minister’s opening remarks, I urge the Chancellor and his party colleagues to consider abandoning their plans to remove the NHS bursary.
The Royal College of Nursing, which has a membership of about 435,000 nurses, midwives, health visitors, nursing students and healthcare assistants, has made representations to the SNP, outlining its complete opposition to the Government’s plans. It must be highlighted that it is not only students in England who are pleading with the Government to abandon their plans. The vast majority of other medical professionals, students and workers in Scotland are demanding that the NHS bursary package is retained.
It is important to understand why nursing students receive a different funding settlement from other students’. I know only too well the long hours my sister and her colleagues spent studying when she was at university. Nursing students study and work longer hours on their course than other students. They spend a considerable amount of time on the ward, learning alongside fully qualified nurses and other health professionals. I am aware that the students value the time they spend working in hospitals and I also know that they are put through their paces while on the ward. Replacing the bursary package with a maintenance loan will effectively mean that students are paying the Government for the privilege of working when on placement.
We need to be mindful that the majority of our nursing students are women who are older than the typical student. The RCN suggests that the average age of nursing students is 29 and many have caring responsibilities. In addition, it is not uncommon for these students to work part-time, alongside studying and despite the particular demands of the course. It is only right and proper that they should have a funding support package that meets their particular circumstances. As we have heard, a coalition including Unison, the National Union of Students, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Dental Association and others, states that the new system will lead to students accumulating debt of £51,000.
Many dream about working in our NHS. Instead of putting roadblocks in their way—let us be clear: the removal of the NHS bursary will deter people from choosing to study to become a health professional—we should be looking to incentivise and encourage people from all backgrounds to consider a career in our NHS. This point was made by the Royal College of Midwives, which said:
“The cuts are likely to deter many potential students from entering the profession which is not good news for the future of midwifery in the UK...The axing of student bursaries will inevitably make midwifery an unattainable and less attractive profession to thousands of potentially excellent midwives that our maternity services so badly need.”
The Chancellor and the Health Secretary may claim that the current system is unaffordable, but I disagree. I encourage them to look at the Scottish Government for guidance on how to support the health workers of tomorrow.
In contrast to the UK Government’s desire to abolish bursary support for nursing students, the Scottish Government will provide over £6,500 to them. The UK Government previously operated a means-tested system; the Scottish Government will continue to offer the bursary to all of these students—without means-testing. Where the UK Government sanction charges of up to £9,000 a year for a university education, the Scottish Government have preserved the right of a free education. Where the UK Government work against the health service and education partners, the Scottish Government work with these bodies, in partnership, to ever improve on the education and health services that exist in Scotland.
There are 41% more qualified nurses and midwives per head of population in Scotland than there are in England. Yet despite that, we have committed to increase nursing and midwifery student numbers by 5.6% in the next academic year. On average, there are 1,000 extra nurses in training in each and every year in comparison with the previous Scottish Executive.
The Government need to stop attacking the health service and those who work in our wards and clinics. If the Prime Minister is serious about running a one nation Government, he needs to listen and engage with the concerns being raised by nursing students and others right across the health and university sectors.

Daniel Zeichner: I congratulate the shadow Health team on securing this debate.
Just a few weeks ago, I found myself in a packed lecture theatre in Cambridge. I had been invited there by Giovanna Mead. She is a student nurse, and the room was packed full of her colleagues. They were  angry—not for themselves, but for those in the years ahead who should be following in their footsteps. They were absolutely convinced and absolutely sure that if the Government’s changes go ahead, people like them would not be doing as they had done. They would not be embarking on the training that is so essential to the future of our NHS.
Those people are rightly furious that there seems to be a complete misunderstanding about just how different they are as a cohort from other students, and just how different their course is from other courses. There has been a complete failure to understand how their course involves being at work and sometimes, as they explained, going way beyond the call of duty. Being at work is different from just being on a course. The testimonies of these nurses and those of others across the country speak volumes. I pay tribute to the Royal College of Nursing for pulling together hundreds and hundreds of these stories. What makes the Minister so sure that he knows so much better than all these people, who are actually doing nursing and who know and understand the choices that people in their situation are likely to make?
Before I was elected here, I worked for Unison and met many student nurses, so I know that the Government fail to understand the simple truth that nursing, midwifery and allied health professional students are not like other students. One important and fundamental difference lies in the requirement that healthcare students spend a significant proportion of their studies on clinical placements. As the Royal College of Nursing points out, and as others have said,
“student nurses aren’t like other students. 50 per cent of their time is spent in clinical practice working directly with patients and their families and they have a longer academic year.”
Indeed, student nurses must spend a minimum of 2,300 hours on clinical placement during their studies—working, providing care and making a vital contribution to the health service. This often includes early shifts, night shifts and weekend shifts. In practice, the funding changes being driven through will charge students to go to work and to do a job that is desperately needed.
Furthermore, it is clear that these changes are being rushed through without proper consideration of their consequences. The Government say that they will create 10,000 new nursing, midwifery and allied health degree places, which would be welcome if it were to happen—particularly at a time when agency staff are plugging the staffing gap and draining NHS finances. It has not been made at all clear, however, that the resources are in place to support an influx of new students in clinical settings. Put simply, do the placements exist?
This concern is linked to a wider issue about the uncoupling of education commissioning and workforce planning. The potential consequences of a disconnection between university recruitment and NHS workforce planning must be addressed, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the risk this uncoupling poses to the ability of the NHS to best assess and plan workforce requirements.

Wes Streeting: One of the more interesting aspects of the Government’s proposals is to increase routes through non-degree courses. In view of the report of The Lancet  in February 2014, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should tread carefully here? Based on data across nine European countries, it suggested that every 10% increase in the number of Bachelor degree-educated nurses in a hospital is associated with a 7% decline in patient mortality. Even on the more positive aspects of the proposals, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should tread much more carefully than they are?

Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend has made an interesting point, and I hope it is one that the Minister will address.
There are other ways in which student nurses, midwives and allied health professionals are different. As we know, they are more likely to be older, to be women, to come from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, to have children, and to have first degrees already. The average age of a new nurse is 28. Those characteristics matter, because they increase the likelihood that the changes in funding for healthcare degree places will be a disincentive to the undertaking of degrees. According to the Royal College of Midwives, the removal of NHS bursaries means that
“Women with children and those who already have a first degree will be particularly hit hard…many of these women already make up a large proportion of our current midwifery student base.”
Many students take up healthcare studies as a second degree course. Already saddled with repayments of undergraduate debt, they are hardly likely to be enthusiastic about the prospect of taking on an additional debt of £51,600. The starting salary for nurses is only £21,692, and replacing NHS bursaries with loans will mean an average pay cut of more than £900 a year for a nurse, midwife or allied health professional, given current salary levels. We know that debt particularly deters poorer students, single parents and BME students—those who are more likely to be found entering nursing and midwifery.
I think that the people who can best explain what the Government’s decision will mean are those who will be most directly affected. The Royal College of Nursing has collected their testimonials in a huge big blue book, which I have waved around hopefully during a number of Question Time sessions over the last few weeks, and which I commend to the Minister.
Let me end by returning to that packed room in Cambridge, and give some of those students a voice. Sarah from Cambridge says:
“I would not have survived without my bursary. The nurse’s salary is poor and to have debt on top is terrible.”
Amanda says:
“I am an adult learner with a husband and two children. I had my children young so was unable to fulfil a degree at the usual time… If I was to have a mountain of debt at the end it would not have been worth my while! I fear it will put off adult learners entering into the degree programme, which will mean the NHS losing out on valuable, decent people who would make fantastic nurses!”
Maria says:
“By stopping the bursary we are in danger of preventing mature students from entering training as those who already have financial commitments will struggle. This will mean that the NHS loses the chance of recruiting a great resource of potential nurses.”
Another Sarah says:
“I am really disappointed by this change, and nursing is not like any other profession so should be treated uniquely. It is really tough being a nursing student and I think that the proposed bursary changes should be considered carefully to respect the work, commitment and enthusiasm of student nurses.”
She puts it very well. If the Government will not listen to me, perhaps they will at least listen to her.

Justin Madders: This has been a high-quality and comprehensive debate. I have to say that I have a small amount of sympathy for the Minister for Community and Social Care, because, as we all know, this policy was not devised in his Department, but hastily put together on the back of a fag packet somewhere in the Treasury following the Chancellor’s £2 billion raid on the Department of Health budget. It looks very much like a case of “Cut first and ask questions later.” I say that because in just two lines of the autumn statement, with no consultation and no evidence base, the Government have committed themselves to a huge gamble with the future of the NHS workforce and with patient safety.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) for leading the campaign with his early-day motion. His record in this area is unparalleled. He explained expertly why many student nurses are in a different position from that of other students, and expressed the concern that he and many other Members feel about the deterrent effect that the Government’s proposals will have on future numbers. Other Members spoke in similar vein, including my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) and for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who pressed the Minister on what estimate had been made of the number of loans that would be written off. He did not receive a reply; I trust that the Minister for Community and Social Care will be able to fill in the details.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), who came to this place with a strong reputation as a health campaigner, spoke with great authority about the pitfalls of the proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who also has great experience in this area, asked a very pertinent question about the capacity of the health service to take on the extra students. The Chairman of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), made an important contribution, and I hope that the Minister will respond directly to some of the very real concerns that she raised.
The Government are presiding over the worst A&E figures since records began, the biggest financial crisis in the history of the NHS—three quarters of trusts are now in deficit—and a crisis in morale across the workforce, with a Secretary of State too belligerent to listen. They have already alienated a generation of junior doctors, and now they risk doing the same for our future nurses and midwives, as well as many other health professionals. Why are they looking to unsettle a huge section of our NHS workforce at a time when good will is more important than ever?
We have several concerns about this policy, many of which hon. Members have aired today and to which the Government are yet to give any credible answer. First,  let us look at the actual problem the proposals are trying to address—not the black hole created by the Chancellor but the shortage of nurses in the NHS. Be in no doubt, the Government are entirely responsible for that shortage, because they decided to reduce the number of nurse training places. Had they maintained the level set by the last Labour Government, 8,000 more nurses would have been trained in the last Parliament alone. When we hear, therefore, about spiralling agency costs and staffing shortages, let us remember the cause—not the nurses, the trusts or the patients, but the Government’s chronic mishandling of the NHS.
The proposal, with all its risk and uncertainty, will,  in the Government’s most optimistic scenario, deliver 10,000 more nurses, midwives and other health professionals. When they say the proposal could deliver up to 10,000 more staff, they really are looking at the glass half full. The figure comes with so many caveats that, if it were a used car, I would not even take it for a test drive. The Government’s own equality assessment acknowledges that there could be an adverse impact on parents and carers and that childcare costs could have a significant influence on participation. It is worth picking up a few quotes from their impact analysis and evidence document, to get a flavour of just how flaky the proposal is. It says that the
“precise impact is difficult to estimate with certainty”,
that “Behavioural change is uncertain”, that
“there may be some uncertainty over applications in the very short term”
and—my favourite—that there
“is no robust set of information to make this assessment.”
In other words, the Government are saying they have done an assessment but have absolutely no idea what the impact of the policy will be. If that does not amount to a huge gamble, I do not know what does.
If the Government will not take heed of their own assessments, they might listen to the Royal College of Nursing, which has said that
“there is a risk of people being put off from applying to nursing degrees, because of concerns over debt.”
It, like many Members, is particularly concerned about the impact on mature students. As we have heard, the average age of a student nurse is 28. The RCN has said:
“There is a worrying lack of assessment of the potential for the changes to act as a disincentive for some students, such as mature students or those from lower income backgrounds.”
Research by the trade union Unison shows that nine out of 10 student nurses surveyed said they would not have gone into training had the new proposals been in place. That is not a trivial number. If the numbers put off turned out to be even half that, the implications for the NHS would be catastrophic. So where is the evidence to reassure us that it will not happen? There is not any. The Minister prays in aid the experience across the general higher education sector, but he knows that he is not comparing like with like. The evidence from the mature student experience does not support his case. In fact, the Higher Education Statistics Agency says that between 2011 and 2015 the number of mature students fell by 17%.
Let us be clear about what the policy really means for nurses. Owing to the Government’s reprehensible decision to freeze the student loan repayment threshold at £21,000 from 2017, all future nurses are facing a real-terms pay  cut. According to Unison, based on current salaries, the average nurse, midwife or allied health professional will lose over £900 a year to meet their debt repayments. Staff retention is a huge issue across the NHS, including in nursing, and as the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) rightly pointed out, the Government’s record is poor. Saddling nurses with extra debt will only make the matter worse.

David Morris: I did not say that the Government’s record was poor; I pointed out that we needed reform, which is what we are here to discuss. I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman’s approach, because we have had a very constructive debate today.

Justin Madders: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he is stating the facts, then I interpret them as being a poor record for the Government; that is more about the facts than about the way in which he presented them.
Let us be clear: we are talking about a debt that nurses are never likely to pay off. They will graduate with debts of between £50,000 and £60,000. Many of the mature students who take nursing as a second degree will find themselves with more than £100,000 of debt. Let me repeat that figure so that it sinks in: our country is looking down the barrel of a policy that will saddle nurses with a six-figure debt. They are not bankers or lawyers; the people who keep the NHS going will be earning just a fraction of what they earn. We already have the highest level of student debt in the English-speaking world, which is not a record we should be proud of, and these proposals will only make matters worse.
It would be an error to put nurses into the same category as other students, but I think that the Government are making that error. Student nurses’ courses take up much more of the year, meaning that they have much less opportunity than other students to work while they study. They are also required to spend 50% of the time working with patients in clinical practice, including on evening and weekend shifts. That requires a real commitment of at least 2,300 hours over the length of their course, during which they do difficult jobs at unsocial times. Now the Government are asking them to pay for the privilege of doing that. This policy is like some kind of perverse extension of workfare. Last year, there were 10,000 unfilled nurse places in London alone. Is getting people to work for free really the answer to that?
The Government really need to raise their game to improve retention among nurses. The situation has been getting steadily worse over the past few years, and nearly 9% of nurses left last year. Some might have gone to work elsewhere in the NHS, but many have left the profession altogether. Surely sorting that out would provide a more effective solution to our problems than taking a punt on an untested plan. There appears to have been no dialogue with providers, who seem unaware of the oncoming rush. Each student nurse has to be clinically assessed by a registered nurse who has done their mentoring and assessing course, but no assessment appears to have been made of the capacity for trusts to take on those extra responsibilities.
It is clear that this policy, with all its flaws, was announced with no consultation, no engagement with the sector and no evidence basis. With such a high degree of uncertainty, surely it would have been sensible to consult on the principle before embarking on the policy. But not this Government; they know best, even though they do not seem to know their own record in this area. When I asked the Minister a simple written question on how many nurses had qualified in the last five years, I received the following response:
“The Department does not hold information on the number of nurses who qualified in the last five years”.
What an absolute shambles!
Anyone would think that with such a gap in the available evidence, the Government would have gone out of their way to undertake a full consultation and to seek out evidence before announcing the policy, but no. The Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Podiatry and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists are all respected institutions with years of experience and a wealth of knowledge in this area, but not one of them was asked to make a formal input into this policy before it was announced, contrary to what the Minister has said today. When he was asked, in a Westminster Hall debate on 11 January, who he had consulted, he said:
“There has been consultation with leading nursing professionals.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 237WH.]
He said nothing about the royal colleges. I hope that we shall be able to clear this up. I ask him to tell us exactly who he did consult, and to place in the Library a copy of the advice that he received following the consultation.
Let us not pretend, now that the consultation has been published, that it is a meaningful consultation on the principle or the detail of the proposals. It simply asks a few technical questions on how to implement the changes. You can have any colour you want as long as it is black. It is frankly an insult to the public, to patients and to the profession. The Government should withdraw this proposal and instead commit to a full consultation on how to improve the support available to student nurses, how to increase the number of nurses in the NHS and how to improve retention. I urge all Members who genuinely care about the future of our health service, who have concerns about the potential deterrent effect of these proposals, and who are not prepared to gamble recklessly with our nurses, to join us in the Lobby today and send a clear message to the Government that it is time to think again. I commend the motion to the House.

Chris Matheson: Pick that one out of the back of the net!

Alistair Burt: And where has the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) been during the debate? [Interruption.] Oh, I beg your pardon, but that is not as good as being here in on the Floor of the Chamber in real life.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to respond to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) for raising the important question of the development and expansion of nurse training in England. I thank colleagues for a  good debate, with discussions informed by those with close connections with the NHS, either personally or through family.
I pay tribute to all those who work and train in hospitals, who fill the posts that we have been speaking about, and who are the subject of our debate. They are not only nurses and midwives; several colleagues made specific references to allied health professionals, such as those in dietetics, occupational therapy, orthotics and prosthetics, physiotherapy, podiatry and chiropody, radiography, speech and language therapy, operating department practice, dental hygiene and dental therapy—all important components of the NHS. We recognise the importance of the work done in our hospitals, and we thank them for their effort.
This has been a not unusual debate in which the Government propose changing something and the Opposition react with horror. Whether the Government’s arguments are good or bad, that is how it goes. There have been a variety of Opposition arguments—some good, some less good—but whenever change is proposed, there is a set of reactions. As for the poorest reaction, I say this to the hon. Member for Lewisham East with great sincerity: please do not go down the class route. It was absolutely unnecessary to try to pick out what people might have heard in various places as they were growing up and graduating. I am the son of a doctor and a teacher, so there were public health workers in my household. The sense that I got of public service and commitment was possibly shaped then. I do not think that the experience was any different from that of the hon. Lady, or of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who had a private education at Haberdashers’ Aske’s School for Girls. I see no evidence in the hon. Lady’s obvious commitment to mental health and everything else that her conversations shaped her poorly in any way. To suggest that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), may not have picked up the same sort of information, and that that may have impacted on his care and work as a Health Minister, was pretty low. The hon. Member for Lewisham East should not go down that road again.
The two main arguments presented today against what we are trying to do have been about deterrents, or the idea that the occupations are somehow unpalatable and that people will not go into them. On deterrents, I am old enough to have been here for the original debates on the introduction of student fees. Everyone protesting against them at the time said that no one would ever go to university again, and that people from poor backgrounds would never go to university. The same arguments come up every time the subject is raised, and the same arguments have been proved false time and again. What is not false is the damage done at the time of the debates when it is suggested to those who want to aspire to higher education, and to take themselves in a different direction, that it will somehow be made impossible, and that they should not want to do it. Those arguments have been used time and again, and they have been used again today. They were wrong then; they are wrong now.

Debbie Abrahams: What is unique about this situation, as has been mentioned several times, is that a disproportionate number  of the nurses using the bursary scheme enter as mature students, including three of my nieces. If bursaries were not available to them, they would not have gone on to train as excellent nurses.

Alistair Burt: If the hon. Lady had been here for the entire debate, she would have heard people speak about the problems of hardship following bursaries; that was referred to by the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and by Government Members. People want access to more funds, which might help those whom the hon. Lady just mentioned, but the assumption is that, because it will be a student loan and because it is a change, people just will not want to do the courses. There is no evidence to suggest that that is correct. Using it as a scare story is unhelpful for the recruitment that we want.

Nicholas Dakin: Does the Minister accept that the royal colleges and others are genuinely anxious about the proposals? If he does, will he commit to engaging with them as fully as possible?

Alistair Burt: That is a good question. Yes, of course. At a time of change, there is a degree of uncertainty. My main point is about how the matter has been blown up yet again, as it was for student loans originally. The idea that people would be deterred from ever going to university, and that no one would go from disadvantaged backgrounds, has been proved false. Of course, the concerns are very much being addressed by the consultation that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, is undertaking, and he is listening extremely carefully. The consultation process is very wide and genuine, and he is listening particularly to ideas on alterations and proposals. The consultations are not complete and the scheme is not complete, and he is keeping a close ear on those consultations.
There is recognition that there are different characteristics for those who go into nursing, midwifery and allied health professions, which is why we want to make sure that appropriate support is available. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills student support regulations give more support than the bursary; the Secretary of State retains the power to give discretionary funding in exceptional cases; and in the consultation, respondents can give examples of unique characteristics, so that the reforms can reflect that. Our position recognises that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) said, more of the same will not do the job. The need for change is there. We need more nurses, and we need more nurses domestically trained. We are going to do something different, recognising what changes there might be. That is why we have the consultation. Unique characteristics will be reflected in it; that is what the consultation is about. Keeping the current system is not working and will not work in the future. That is why we need change.

Paula Sherriff: My local Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust is, by its own admission, in the midst of a nursing crisis, with about half the wards staffed at below the minimum staffing level for nurses. Does the Minister think these proposals will help or hinder that?

Alistair Burt: I say in all honesty to the hon. Lady, who is knowledgeable about health matters and has been to see both me and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich,  that the proposals help. At the moment, the problem with nurse training in this country is that it is limited. The universities cannot take all the people who want to be nurses; they have to turn them away—37,000 of them. This scheme opens up the opportunity for more people to train, and for more people to come into nursing through the nursing associates route. If the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) is looking for a straight answer on whether this will provide more nurses and help her local hospital, I can say: yes, it will. That is why these proposals are being made.
I wish to set out briefly the details of the basis for the reforms, just for those who were not able to attend the whole debate, and then answer one or two questions that were raised. To deliver more nurses, midwives and allied health professionals for the NHS, a better funding system for health students in England and a sustainable model for universities, we need to move nursing, midwifery and allied health students from grants and bursaries on to the standard student loans system. Putting more funding into the existing system was not a sensible or viable option for the Government, if we are also to increase the number of student places, live within our budget, and ensure that the NHS can use the extra £10 billion-worth of additional investment for front-line care by the end of the Parliament.
The subjects that we are talking about are extremely popular with students. In 2014, nursing registered as the fifth most popular subject on UCAS, and in that year there were 57,000 applicants for 20,000 nursing places. Rather than denying thousands of applicants a place to study health subjects at university, surely it is better that the new proposals ensure enough health professionals for the NHS, while cutting the current reliance on expensive agency and overseas staff, and giving more applicants the chance to become a health professional. Part of the reason why we need to modernise the funding system is that student nurses, midwives and allied health students currently have access to less money through the NHS bursary than students using the student loan system do. Under a move to the loan system, these health students will receive an increase of about 25% in the financial resources available to them for living costs during the time they are at university.
It is not possible to pick out all the speeches made today, but I would like to make reference to some. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) discussed issues affecting postgraduate students, which are important. The majority of healthcare students undertaking these courses will be able to access a BIS postgraduate masters loan, although we acknowledge in the consultation that some courses currently fall outside the BIS postgraduate loan package. We are working with BIS and the Treasury on their higher education and lifelong learning review, and we will address these matters in the Government’s response to the consultation, so she is right to raise that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the Chair of the Health Committee, said straightforwardly that we need to train more nurses. That is our bottom line; it is what we are trying to do. On transition, she said that it was important to listen to needs, and she spoke about getting more professionals away from the  acute sector and into primary care. As she knows, that is a major interest of this Government, and these proposals will help in that regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) was straightforward. He talked about his trust recruiting from abroad, but said that it would like to recruit more at home. It will be able to do so under these proposals.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) talked about what he discovered when he spoke to his local university and trust. He discussed the morality of taking more nurses, and student nurses, from overseas. It is important to recognise that our proposal will ease that situation to some degree. He also spoke about the important issue of the Ministers’ dilemma: of whether to put money into training now, knowing that the benefit will come some years later. It is important for any Government to recognise that more money must go into the training of doctors and of the people about whom we are talking today. There will be a return later.
I am conscious of time, and I am sorry that I cannot cover more speeches. Let me say this: the NHS never sleeps or stays still. As our country changes, so does the NHS; it must. It is always comforting to resist change, even when the status quo is not good enough; however, the need for innovation, which will be challenging and resisted, is imperative. This Government have given the NHS that commitment, and we will promote the finance, planning and innovation that were denied by the Opposition. We will not allow so many people to be denied the opportunity of becoming a nurse. We will not allow those on hardship funds and bursaries to fail to get access to more finance. We will not allow them to be—

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put.
The House divided:
Ayes 158, Noes 277.

Question accordingly negatived.

BACKBENCH BUSINESS - EDUCATION FUNDING IN LONDONBACKBENCH BUSINESS

Bob Neill: I beg to move,
That this House notes the Government’s intention to implement a new funding formula for schools from April 2017; welcomes the Department for Education’s commitment to hold a detailed consultation on this proposal; calls on the Government to recognise the unique challenges schools in London face; and further calls on the Government to ensure that any changes to the funding model are both fair and proportionate to London’s needs.
It is a pleasure to have secured this debate and to have the chance to raise the matter on behalf of myself and a number of colleagues cross-party who are members of the all-party parliamentary group for London, which consists of 47 Members of Parliament from London and 20 or so peers. The matter is of concern to the current Mayor, any future Mayor and the leadership of all parties on London councils. That is why we raise it in the way that we do; it is an important debate for us.
I should make it clear at the start that neither the Mayor nor London councils have an issue with the principle of a national funding formula and greater transparency in funding. The lack of transparency is a genuine issue for many local education authorities, and that is my personal approach as well.
One issue we want to flag up is that there is currently a consultation, and there are some good things in it, but there are also some risks. Those need to be drawn to the attention of the House and the Government because they could impact on London, given its particular nature.

Joan Ryan: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate and on the powerful start he has made. I have no argument with fair funding, but my schools are telling me, “We need to level up, not down. We are in danger of setting deficit budgets. We want to retain some local flexibility.”

Bob Neill: I am conscious that those views were expressed at the meeting sponsored by the all-party group, and the right hon. Lady and others may well raise them in the debate.
A number of issues arise, but I want to concentrate on just a few. First, I have no problem with the principle of national funding, but we must take into account the particular circumstances in London. We should also remember that London is not a single, homogeneous unit; there are different pressures, which make the capital different from the rest of the country, and the different parts of the capital different from each other. We must therefore be particularly granular and careful in applying any formula.
That is important because London has been a success in education. It now outperforms all other regions at every key stage of testing. London pupils outperform their peers nationally at key stage 2 and key stage 4 and in entry to the English bac, and London schools outperform others in being rated outstanding or good, with 89% above the national average. London is therefore a success story, and it is one we do not want to put in jeopardy.

Lucy Frazer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bob Neill: I will give way once more—to someone from outside London.

Lucy Frazer: My hon. Friend perhaps anticipates the point I am going to make as the Member who represents South East Cambridgeshire. Of course London has enjoyed great success, but is it not only right that other areas—areas that have been underfunded for years—should benefit from the opportunity to enjoy the same success so that they can be brought up to the level that London has enjoyed?

Bob Neill: That is part of the point about levelling up that was made by the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan).
The other two things I would observe are these. I mentioned that London is not homogeneous. The levels of funding in outer-London boroughs such as mine, Bromley, and in others, such as Richmond upon Thames and Kingston upon Thames, are actually often much lower than those that are headlined in respect of inner-London boroughs. Boroughs such as mine have levels of funding that are scarcely different from those in the shire counties around us.

James Berry: As one of the Members of Parliament representing Kingston upon Thames, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that it cannot be right that my borough gets less than £5,000 per pupil, while other boroughs in London get more than £7,000 per pupil?

Bob Neill: That is the point we need to address.

Bob Neill: I will make a little progress and then I will take some more interventions, because it is worth setting one other point in context.
Historically, London has had higher levels of funding, but, as I said, that does not apply to every borough. There is also a reason for that funding.

Bob Neill: I am just going to make this point before I start giving way again—otherwise I will not make a coherent argument at all. There is a reason for that funding, which is that London has, on many levels, greater challenges. There are far more children with English as a second language. There are higher levels of deprivation on almost any indices. There is great wealth, but there is also great deprivation, and those are closely—geographically and physically—juxtaposed. On any view, there are also extra costs involved in being a teacher or in running a school in London. The capital cost of sites is more because the land values are much higher. The cost of housing also means that teachers’ wages have to be higher. It is not illegitimate for those things to be reflected in the formula. London as a city is also the UK’s principal economic driver and puts in more to the UK economy than it takes out, so in that respect we are already subsidising the rest of the UK.

Lyn Brown: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on the manner in which he has approached it. I agree with   almost everything he has said. I come from an outer-London borough officially, but we have inner-London needs, and that is not reflected in the funding we receive from central Government. Does my hon. Friend—sorry, the hon. Gentleman—agree that we must make sure that funding is commensurate to the needs of the children in an area?

Bob Neill: The hon. Lady is almost an hon. Friend when West Ham are playing on Saturdays, and we hope for a good end to the season. She is right, and that brings me to the second point about funding. First, some outer-London boroughs are no better funded than shire counties anyway, yet in London there are much greater costs than in the rest of the country; and secondly, there is an artificial distinction in how funding in London is split up between inner and outer London. If justice is to be done in a formula, we need to move away from that distinction, which is purely historical. It goes back to the creation of the Greater London Council in 1963, when the then Inner London Education Authority was in fact part of the old London County Council, which had been a county education authority, while the outer-London boroughs had been educational authorities in their own right, either as parts of counties or as county boroughs. The historical anomaly that the hon. Lady mentions is the fact that her local authority is an amalgamation of two county boroughs that are part of the east end but were not in a county of London, so are treated as being in outer London, whereas Wandsworth, for example, which, in many respects, is much more prosperous, is an inner-London borough. That is a wholly illogical and unsustainable distinction that we need to break down because it distorts the arrangements.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is right. The funding system we have today, handed over from the previous Labour Government, is broken in London and in urban and rural areas alike, and needs to be fixed. On additional costs in London, no proposal that I have seen from anyone, including f40, suggests anything other than that London would continue to have significantly more money per head than other areas.

Bob Neill: I am grateful for that point, and I accept it. Provided that we get that built in, this need not be an argument, but rather a question of making sure that any formula reflects the diversity of needs that exists within London.

Margaret Hodge: rose—

Bob Neill: I give way to the right hon. Lady, who is very well regarded in London for all her work.

Margaret Hodge: I thank the hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on securing this debate. He talked about some of the factors that impact on the differential costs in London and elsewhere. Does he agree that the mobility of families in London is another factor? Two primary schools in my constituency have a 30% turnover every year, meaning that every teacher has to teach 40 children a year. The additional costs of getting to know, assessing and then responding to those needs ought to be had regard to in setting the formula if it is to be fair for every child in the country.

Bob Neill: I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady. I say to the Government that I hope that this could be reflected the formula without causing any damage to the overall principle. That is for the very good reason that because inner-London boroughs are geographically so small, and part of one single housing market and one single jobs market, people will very frequently move across them. In my constituency, one can move a quarter of a mile or half a mile down the road and be in one of two other London boroughs. London boroughs experience much more cross-border mobility than in a shire county where one could move 20 or 30 miles and still be within the same county. I would urge that that matter could fairly be taken into account.

Andrew Murrison: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his remarks. The right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) mentioned turbulence as a reason for funding certain schools, particularly in London. Does my hon. Friend agree that London is not the only place where turbulence is suffered, and that the pupil premium that the Government rightly introduced to allow for the fact that service families move all the time is germane to this debate and needs to be reflected in the funding formula?

Bob Neill: I supported the introduction of the pupil premium, as did my hon. Friend. It is worth stressing that although turbulence occurs in other places, it is particularly acute in London owing to the size of its population and the churn of its population as a whole, with people moving in and out of London, and people moving within London, and therefore families and children moving and London authorities having to cope with far more cross-borough placements than other areas. That issue, together with the artificial distinction I mentioned, could be sensibly incorporated into the formula to reflect the position in London.
Many other hon. Members want to speak and I do not want to deny them the opportunity, but I just want to touch on a few other matters. We have discussed the two key issues, namely the churn and mobility and the inner-outer distinction, which is out of date. There is also pressure on how the question of deprivation is measured. It is currently done by postcode, but there can be massive extremes of wealth and poverty within some London borough postcodes. That is very apparent in some places in docklands.

Victoria Borwick: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and absolutely concur with what he has said about deprivation. Kensington still has two of the most deprived areas in all of Britain, so nobody should think that it is paved with gold. We also have some outstanding schools. We have run through the initial proposals and—I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of this—it is calculated that 28 of our 33 schools will face a significant funding reduction should the proposals be implemented in full, with some outstanding schools set to lose 10% of their budget. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the issue to our attention.

Bob Neill: There are pressures and they are only going to grow, given that the London pupil population is going to increase significantly: the year-on-year growth rate is 3%. That needs to be funded. London also faces  particularly high pressures in relation to special educational needs provision. The Department does not provide the capital funding for special educational needs and disability provision, which is an issue for areas with higher land values than those elsewhere in the country.

Bob Neill: I have been generous and I really do need to move on.
There are other issues that do not relate directly to the national funding formula, but they could correct one or two anomalies in how dedicated school grants work. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), has already been helpful and met representatives of my local authority and others to try to iron out the rigidities. It is not possible, for example, to spend money on SEND transport, which seems anomalous given that it is integrally linked to the provision of the schools themselves. There are similar issues with psychological services. If the consultation picks up on such things around the margins, that would greatly assist London boroughs, many of which run a pretty tight and efficient ship.
Councillor David Simmonds, the deputy leader of Hillingdon Council and chair of the Local Government Association’s children and young people board, is well known to Ministers. He has said:
“Probably the biggest risk lies in the underfunding of the High Needs Block which will remain with councils. I am concerned that there is an implicit assumption that councils will bail out the underfunding through recourse to council-tax payers, which is a major departure from the principle that underpins the Dedicated Schools Grant that education funding is ring-fenced.”
That is a fair point. I hope that the Government will take it on board and find a means of removing what I am sure would have been an unintended consequence of an insufficiently flexible formula.
My final point comes from two headteachers in my constituency. I took the liberty of asking them about their experience. The headteacher of a very efficient and highly rated primary school near where I live says that they
“already manage…on a very tight budget. I can confidently claim that without the very generous support of our Parent Teacher Association we would not be in a position to afford many of the resources that make our schools run so effectively—such as computing technology, sports coaches and even basics like exercise books.”
She refers to housing costs and the
“tendency for excellent young teachers to move away”.
This small school is doing all the right things. It has joined a multi-academy trust and is doing what the Government want it to do, but it is right up against it, on the margins. In an outer-London borough with low funding, we would want to ensure that the formula does not prejudice such schools.
The head of a good secondary school points out that
“Bromley is still the lowest funded London authority and actually as low as many of the Shire counties”.
She goes on to mention having some flexibility on the availability of schools forums, where they are still useful. She also reiterates the arbitrary distinction whereby she pays teachers from outer-London funding, while in Lewisham and Greenwich, which is a quarter of a mile  up the road and where the demographic is no different, the situation is different because there happens to be a line on a map. That needs to be addressed by a sensible funding formula.
That is a helpful summary from people at the coalface. I will not trespass on the House’s time anymore, because I know that a number of London Members of all parties want to bring their own perspective to the debate, but I hope I have flagged up the key issues. I am grateful for the chance to do so.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I suggest that Members take about 10 minutes, so that everybody gets equal time?

Rushanara Ali: I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for securing this debate on such an important issue, and I pay tribute to him for his work with the all-party group on London.
As the hon. Gentleman said, there are concerns that changes to the national funding formula will have a massive negative impact on London schools and their pupils. Despite the Government’s hollow promises of ring-fenced education funding, the Institute for Fiscal Studies reports that London schools already face an 8% real-terms reduction in funding over the next five years. Now it looks likely that they will face a further cut of £260 million a year due to the changes to the national funding formula. The Minister has said in the past that that is not the case, and I hope he will take the opportunity to clarify today whether he accepts that figure. Perhaps he can confirm to Members that London schools will not face that cut.

Karen Buck: Does not the funding formula also drives perverse outcomes as between schools within the same local authority? Westminster Council has advised me that 20 schools will lose up to 14% of their grant because of how the funding formula works. Perversely, some of the schools with the highest levels of deprivation will lose the most and some of the schools with the least deprivation will be gainers. The problem with how the funding formula works is not just between local authorities but between schools.

Rushanara Ali: I thank my hon. Friend, and I hope the Minister listened carefully to her powerful insights about what will happen both within and across local authorities. It will be schoolchildren who suffer, and the improvements in performance in London schools will be put at risk. That improvement is the envy of the world, with many studies showing how London has progressed. It has taken a generation to achieve that, and I hope the Minister will recognise the concerns being expressed today and the dangers of the changes, which risk having a negative effect on the performance of London schools.
I want to highlight some of the challenges that exist and the backdrop against which London has transformed its schools. As I said, that has taken a generation, and the danger is that the change will set us back in a very short time. London faces some of the highest child poverty levels in the country, and, as the hon. Member  for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out, the highest inequality. The extremely high cost of living, and especially of housing, has a detrimental effect on teachers’ ability to find accommodation.
Despite those challenges, local education authorities across parties—Labour councils as well as Conservative councils—have worked tirelessly to improve education in London. As a result, nine out of 10 schools are good or outstanding. I hope the Minister will think carefully about the impact of the reforms on that progress. If we are not careful, we will set schools in London back.
Other regions see London as an exemplar. People point to the London Challenge, which the last Labour Government introduced, and which was supported by people across parties and recognised for its achievements. Other regions have tried to emulate it. It is really important that we build on the successes of our regions rather than pit them against one other, which I fear will happen as a result of the changes. It is wrong to put educationists in competition with each other for the wrong reasons. We should be looking at how to improve the achievement of all our children, across the country.

Graham Stuart: It is worth saying that it is important to have a fair system across the country. Certain parts of London—and it is only parts—have disproportionately benefited. A Lambeth school can have more than £1,500 a head more—for a class of 30, that is £45,000 more—than a school half a mile away in Croydon. We have a broken system, and we need to fix it.

Rushanara Ali: We have very good results in London. Nine out of 10 schools across London are good or outstanding. We should build on that, not pit schools against one other. The hon. Gentleman served on the Education Committee so should know better than to make that argument.

Margaret Hodge: I was not going to intervene again, but I have to on the back of that. In its manifesto, the Conservative party said:
“Under a future Conservative Government, the amount of money following your child into school will be protected.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that changing the formula to take money away from some children is not the right way to meet a manifesto commitment?

Rushanara Ali: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. It would be yet another broken promise. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully today and make sure that that promise is not broken.

Stephen Timms: Has my hon. Friend seen the estimate which states that if the F40 proposals were implemented as tabled by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and others, the most prosperous 30 authorities in the country would gain more than £200 million and the least prosperous would lose more than £200 million?

Rushanara Ali: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is exactly what schoolteachers are concerned about. That cannot happen. It goes to show that there is not a good motive behind this change. The Government should be ashamed of themselves, and the Minister should take action.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point about the collective endeavour to improve standards of education for children in London. Does she share my concern that in Southwark that will be undermined if Southwark schools lose, as they risk doing, between 8% and 20% between now and 2019-20? Does she agree with the point made by our right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) that that is not protecting funding?

Rushanara Ali: I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I find it shocking that Ministers can make the argument that they are protecting budgets when these changes mean quite the opposite and will devastate schools in London. I appeal to the Government to look at how to build on the achievements in cities such as London, rather than setting them against other regions. That is deeply unhelpful to our educationists, who work tirelessly to make sure that schools do well.
I will set out the specific example of my constituency, to highlight to the Minister just how the investment in schools in London has transformed education. Under the last Labour Government, schools in Tower Hamlets rose from the bottom of the national league tables, where they were in the 1990s, to being some of the country’s best. That happened against a backdrop of two out of three young people being eligible for free school meals, more than 75% of pupils having English as a second language, and some of the highest levels of child poverty in the country. Tower Hamlets is now in the top third of the national league tables, in a city that, as I mentioned earlier, has the highest percentage of schools that are good or outstanding.
We cannot afford to be complacent, however. Despite the achievements in London, including in boroughs such as mine, 40% of London’s pupils leave school without good GCSEs. Any funding reduction could put further improvements at risk. We need to build on our achievements and make sure that that 40% can leave the education system with good results. That is what the Government should focus on, rather than on potentially decimating success through cutting funding in London.
As has been pointed out, funding is connected with recruitment, and London faces increasing recruitment challenges because of the cost of living crisis. When an average of 73% of the schools budget is allocated to staff costs, these changes could mean more than 6,000 fewer teachers in London’s schools.

James Berry: Does the hon. Lady accept that the increase in house prices in outer London as well as inner London means that the difficulty in recruiting teachers affects the whole of London? The distinction between inner and outer London is no longer a good one, given the increase in house prices across the city as a whole.

Rushanara Ali: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that in boroughs such as mine and in Newham and Hackney, the unprecedented rise in house prices has been much greater than in outer London. I accept his point that house prices are a major issue, but the Government should be considering how to address that across London and the country, rather than dividing communities and areas. That is our point. We must  build on our achievements and not close our ears to each other, because that does not serve our constituents or young people well.
Let me turn to population growth in London. When the population is growing by 100,000 a year in London, we cannot afford to have fewer teachers. If we are already looking at 6,000 fewer teachers with these cuts, imagine what will happen in the future. We need to plan ahead for the needs of cities such as London. If we want London to remain a world-class city with some of the best educated young people in the country, and help other areas to improve and replicate what we are achieving, we must ensure that we do not throw away that success.

Lucy Frazer: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Rushanara Ali: I will continue my remarks because other Members wish to speak and I have given way a number of times. Perhaps the hon. and learned Lady will also have the chance to speak.
As has been mentioned, the increased cost of living in London has meant that teachers find it increasingly difficult to survive on their current salaries, and they require the London weighting equivalent to enable them to live and work in London. Already in boroughs such as mine and elsewhere, local authorities are struggling to maintain teacher numbers, and with these cuts they will have to lay teachers off, which is not what local schools need.
In boroughs like Tower Hamlets, Hackney and elsewhere, we have seen that collaboration, partnership and the effective use of resources by teachers and local education authorities have helped to create a success story that has transformed our schools. We must build on that model. It is not about the academisation of schools in my borough—we did not have academies; it is the collaborative model and partnership, along with well-targeted resources into schools, investment in training, and support to teachers, that transforms schools in my constituency and elsewhere. That is well recognised around the country. Recent reports by the Brooking Institution and the Institute of Education highlight what it took to transform education, and spending resources effectively was critical to that.
My plea to the Minister is that he take back these plans, consider the formula again, and ensure that funding is targeted on those who need it. In London, given the inequality and deprivation, it is vital that we maintain that support. The Government should be looking at levelling up support to schools across the country, not taking resources away and punishing schools for doing well. It has taken a generation to transform schools such as those in my borough and across London, but it will take a matter of years—perhaps even less—if this funding formula is introduced and resources are taken away from schools, to decimate our education system. Surely the Minister will appreciate that it is far better to learn from one other and to build on our achievements rather than damage them.

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on leading it.
It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), although I must say from the outset that I did not agree with the tone of her speech. The Labour party is committed to the fair funding formula. The one we have now is broken and it is broken in London. I described the difference between Lambeth and Croydon, but we can find examples all over London. Schools hundreds of yards apart have differences in funding of up to tens of thousands of pounds per classroom. The current system is completely broken and wrong, and it is wrong across the country. The biggest gainer from the f40 proposals would be Barnsley. Other major northern cities would be beneficiaries, too. If we created a fairer system, other northern cities would lose out, because what we have now is erratic, irrational and bears no examination.
I beg Opposition Members in particular not to use the language that the hon. Lady used. The Government have set out a consultation on the principles. She did not itemise a single principle in the consultation with which she disagreed; she simply asserted that it was some sort of appalling assault on London to reverse the progress that has been made. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are limited resources; that is recognised by those on the Front Benches on both sides of the House.
Talk of levelling up is all very well, so long as the hon. Lady’s party is committed to the vast budgetary increases that that would require. However, the Labour party is committed to no such thing and neither is the Conservative party. Even if the budget for this broken inequitable system was increased, we would still have to sit down and seek to ensure that the needs of every single child, regardless of disability, race or geography, were met.
The hon. Lady was right to say that we should have a system based on needs. That is precisely what the Government have consulted on. Whatever they come up with will doubtless not be perfect—nothing ever is—but to question the motive, when the Government are setting out to introduce a fairer funding system with the support of Labour Front Benchers, is beneath the hon. Lady. To say that London education will be decimated is so far from the truth. We need every area of the country to enjoy the improvements that have happened in London. One way to do that—it is only one way; money is not everything—is by making sure we have a system that is truly fair. I hope that, across the House, partisan voices will not stop us coming to a fair and consensual conclusion.

Lucy Frazer: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We need fairness so that every child has an equal opportunity to get an education. Does he agree that many of the points made about London—growth, special needs, high house prices, a need to recruit and retain teachers—apply to other areas of the country, too? I cite by way of example Cambridge and its outer areas. Every one of those factors applies to us as it does to London.

Graham Stuart: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. We heard language about dividing communities. With respect, the only person attempting to do that today is the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, who used inappropriate language. No one is seeking to divide communities. We have a broken system. If anyone would like to make the case that the current system is  fair, reasonable and just, then please do so. But if it is not—and it is not—then we have to redistribute.
Making pernickety points about the manifesto, which says that the Government are going to protect the amount of money per child—which they are—[Interruption.] To the point where we cannot redistribute from someone who is grossly and unfairly funded in one place to another person somewhere else who is on the other end of the spectrum? That is ridiculous. Again, that is beneath the hon. Lady who brought the issue up and it is beneath other Labour Members—including the highly distinguished figure of the right hon. Gentleman, to whom I am happy to give way.

Stephen Timms: I think most people do not regard manifesto commitments as pernickety. The difficulty with the case the hon. Gentleman is making is that he is dressing it up in terms of principle. The reality is that he is asking for more resources for his local authority and less for others. Will he be frank enough to acknowledge that?

Graham Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect. I want a fair system based on principle in which need is assessed, and where the money follows the pupil and that need. That is precisely what all of us should want.
Given that the Government have set out, in a transparent way, how to bring about this fairer funding formula, the suggestions that have been made are for political purposes; I know there are elections for London Mayor tomorrow. The House should rise above that. If the details come out and they are found not to fit with the principles, they will be worthy of criticism, but right now, such criticism cannot be made. When we have a badly broken system, the failure to demonstrate how it should be changed is not good enough.
What we should be talking about now is what emphasis we want to be placed on deprivation, for example, or population movements. Those things are all reflected in the proposed formula. The Government have touched on all of them. I do not see how it is acceptable to say, “We have a problem with a lot of people for whom English is a second language”, when that features in the formula. It is the same with deprivation needs in London—that, too, is in the proposed formula. The truth is that we have the ingredients for a fair system.

Ian Mearns: rose—

Graham Stuart: I give way to my extremely experienced and knowledgeable north-eastern colleague.

Ian Mearns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There are many different facets to the differential funding around the country, and one of them is the historical choices of the relevant local authority. We used to have what was called the standard spending assessment, and some authorities chose to spend above the standard level. They funded the extra out of local taxation, which was built into the funding taken forward into the current distribution. It is one part of many facets, but it is a crucial part.

Graham Stuart: As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and well-informed point. Westminster has been mentioned, so let us look at that as an example. People in very expensive properties are paying council tax rates that are absolutely on the floor; their rates  should be compared with those paid by my constituents living in homes worth a tiny fraction of the value of those in Westminster to see how much more those constituents are paying.
It does not wash to suggest that a fairer funding system is undermined because people paid more or less council tax in the distant past. The truth is that there are very high levels of council tax in many of the areas, including my own, that have the lowest funding, while there are very low levels of council tax in some of the richest and most prosperous parts of London. What we need is a system that is fair to all.

Ian Mearns: rose—

Angela Watkinson: rose—

Graham Stuart: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that property prices are an element in the formula that must be taken into consideration, particularly in areas such as the London Borough of Havering, which is right on the outside of outer London? Teachers there are paid the outer London allowance, but property prices are very high. Often newly qualified teachers who apply for jobs in our schools find that they cannot afford the accommodation, so they then move inwards towards Barking, Dagenham and other nearby boroughs where the properties are a bit cheaper.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are all sorts of boroughs across London, and some areas are funded to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds less per classroom than one that might be just a short distance away, yet they are in exactly the same market for teachers—the vital ingredient for raising educational standards. Despite that, when it comes to improving standards, outer London has been part of the London educational transformation.
The suggestion that moving from a situation of gross inequity to one that is fairer to all will undermine quality, when those who have suffered that inequity, such as the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson), have none the less managed to improve standards, proves that the issue is not just about money. The money needs to be distributed fairly.
I think the most important thing we should do today as a House is to say that we want a system that is fair to all. We should be discussing the principles and ensuring that the Government do not wriggle on any them for their own partisan or other interests. That is quite right, but let us not scaremonger. Let us not send out messages about dividing communities when the aim of fair funding is right and supported by everyone—including the Labour, Conservative and other major Front-Bench teams. I shall end there.

Steve Reed: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on securing this important debate. I was delighted  to co-sponsor it with him and several other hon. Members. I have been delighted, too, to co-chair with him the all-party parliamentary group for London. It is important to see London Members of different parties in the Chamber, making the case for London’s children in the expectation that the Government will listen and do the right thing by our capital’s children.
London’s schools have been transformed in recent years, particularly since the London Challenge, which was introduced by the Labour Government in 2003 and which pushed the performance of London’s children above the national average, where they have remained ever since. London’s students outperform their peers both in GCSEs and at key stage 2, and they have a higher performance rate in GCSE maths and English than those in any other region in England. However, no one here—no one involved in education in London—considers that to be “job done”. We need to keep up the pressure in order to improve still further. In a globalised economy, London needs to compete with the best in the world, and that means no funding reductions that undermine our schools, heads, teachers, parents, governors and, above all, hard-working students.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said that it was pernickety to keep education promises. That is not pernickety; it is a matter of trust—the trust of the electors. To breach that trust, as the Government do time and again, is absolutely wrong. All schools deserve fair funding, and, as my hon. Friends have pointed out today, that means levelling funding up, not down. London Councils estimates that London’s schools could lose about £260 million a year from their budgets as a result of the Government’s proposed new funding formula, and some London boroughs are bracing themselves for a loss of up to 20% of funding at every school. Cuts on that scale would push education backwards in the capital.
To protect completely the funding for all the schools that stand to lose out, the Government would need to increase the block grant by £514 million a year. That would give all schools the resources to match the country’s best-performing schools. That is clearly a very significant amount of money, but it is a fraction of the cost of forcing 18,000 maintained schools to become academies, which, in some quarters, is estimated to be as much as £1.3 billion. That is surely a deranged proposal that would distract many of the best schools from providing excellent education and force them to focus, quite unnecessarily, on governance instead. More than 80% of those schools are already rated good or outstanding, so it beggars belief that the Government want to undermine their success by making unnecessary and dogmatic changes.
There is no need to penalise children in London in order to increase funding elsewhere. Spending on education cannot be seen as a sunk cost; it is an investment that gives young people a better chance in life, and boosts economic growth by providing a better-skilled workforce that benefits all of us.

Bob Stewart: We are talking about a better chance in life and a more skilled workforce. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber will agree that children with special educational needs are often disadvantaged. We must make sure that their funding is maintained, if not increased, because real problems are starting to appear in the constituencies of Bromley and  Chislehurst, and of Beckenham—particularly in secondary schools such as the Langley Park schools, of which my own children, I have to declare, are a part.

Jamie Reed: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. I am glad that he raised it, and I would be astonished if anyone in the Chamber disagreed with him. He is right: we need to keep a particular eye on the support available to those children, because of their vulnerability, and because they have not always been supported properly and helped to achieve what they should have been helped to achieve.
I want to focus for a moment on the situation in Croydon. Our borough’s funding per pupil is £592 lower than the London average. We have the biggest shortfall in places in the country, and over the next five years the number of primary school pupils in Croydon is projected to grow at twice the London average. Croydon faces a huge demand for new primary school places that the Government cannot continue to ignore; they cannot exacerbate the problem by making funding changes that will further disadvantage children in our borough.
A particular problem that has already been mentioned is that teachers in inner-London boroughs can be paid up to £5,000 a year more than those in outer London. A school that is right on the border, as several in my constituency are, may find it hard to attract teachers who can earn so much more at another school just a few hundred yards away. That anomaly needs to be addressed in the new formula—and not, so that Ministers do not misunderstand me, by cutting pay in inner London.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness asked why anyone would question the Government’s motives. One reason why parents in London fear for their schools is the way the Government implemented the transitional relief grant earlier this year. Under that scheme, intended to ease the pain of local government funding cuts, £300 million of funding was made available, but all the relief went to wealthier areas that had received the lowest level of cuts. Surrey got an extra £24 million to spend, while Croydon got a further £44 million of cuts. It was nothing more than naked party political gerrymandering. If that happens again with schools funding, London’s children will suffer.
London Councils, a cross-party organisation, estimates that 29 of London’s 33 boroughs are at risk of losing funding that is likely to be transferred to less deprived areas. Such a decision would be perverse. I hope that the new Mayor of London, who will be elected tomorrow—I hope very much it is my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan)—will join me and other London MPs in making powerful representations to Ministers to protect London’s schools and children. We will not allow the Government to undermine education in our capital city. Our children’s lives matter too much, and our economic future depends on their success. I urge Ministers to turn back and think again.

Stephen Timms: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on securing this debate and on how he introduced it. I also congratulate him, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), on how they chair the all-party parliamentary group for London. They are absolutely right that this is a crucial issue for the future of the capital.
I am worried about the process the Government have gone through to get us to this point. As we have heard, a consultation document was published in March. In the run-up to the consultation, meetings were held that, as far as I can tell, were exclusively with representatives of the f40 group of authorities. According to the f40 group website, its representatives met with the Department on 21 January 2015, 15 June 2015, 9 September 2015, 9 December 2015 and 7 April 2016 to discuss these proposals. As far as I can establish, no representatives of any London councils were present at any of those meetings. I am worried that because of the unbalanced process the Government have gone through, we will end up with an unbalanced proposal.

Sam Gyimah: I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that my door is always open to every Member or representative of any local authority who wants to discuss school funding or any other concerns within my portfolio.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the Minister. The worry, however, is that up until now, the Department’s door has been open only to this particular group. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) champions f40. Nobody can object to representatives of that group of local authorities lobbying and promoting their own interests; it is worrying, though, that it has had this exclusive access up until now.
A version of the minutes of the September meeting with the f40 quoted an official from the Department offering to share “emerging proposals” with the f40 group “in confidence”. Proposals should not be shared in confidence with one particular set of authorities. I note that the minutes have now been altered, so they do not say that any more, but no such offer should ever have been made. My deep worry is that we are heading towards a woefully unbalanced proposal as a result of the privileged access given to that group.
I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance about his door being open, but I want him to give us a commitment that when the numbers are put into the structure in the consultation document published in March, there will be the constraint that there should be no cuts in school funding for pupils in the most disadvantaged areas of the country.
As we have heard, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) has pointed out that the Conservative manifesto certainly sounds as though it is saying that there will be no cuts for any individual students; I hope that that commitment will be maintained. I particularly want to press the Minister on this point: there should be no cuts to schools funding for pupils in the most disadvantaged areas. Indeed, the Government have recognised the need for additional schools funding for disadvantaged students through the pupil premium, so it would surely be quite perverse to slash the same funding through this formula.
As I mentioned earlier, if the f40 proposals were put straight into effect, it would result in the 30 most disadvantaged local authorities in the country losing £245 million per year and the 30 most affluent authorities in the country gaining more than £218 million per year. That would be a straightforward switch of hundreds of millions of pounds from the most disadvantaged authorities  to the most affluent ones. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that that kind of switch, as advocated by the f40 group—understandably; it is in the group’s interests to do so—will not happen.
My authority, the London Borough of Newham, made a freedom of information application for the Department’s modelling or analysis of the likely impact of the new formula. The request was refused. Officials said that they had the information, but its release was refused on the grounds that it related to the formulation or development of Government policy and was therefore exempt from freedom of information obligations. As I have said, however, there has clearly been a lot of access for representatives of the f40 authorities. The Minister has given us a commitment that his door will always be open, and I ask him release that information to the other authorities as well, so that everyone can see where we are heading. As things stand, some authorities have been taken into the Government’s confidence and others have not. Indeed, some of those others have been refused information relating to what has been going on. That information should be released.
A cursory glance at the f40 proposal published in 2013—it is on the f40 website—and at the consultation document published by the Government in March shows an uncanny resemblance between the two. Clearly, the f40 group has been very influential. I feel particularly strongly about this, because modelling suggests that my local authority will be among the biggest losers. Analysis of the f40 proposal shows that seven of the 10 biggest cash losers under the proposals will be in London, while none of the 10 biggest cash winners will be in the capital. That is the direction of the f40 group’s proposals. Of course it is advancing its own interests, but it should not have special access to Ministers in doing that. That is not a fair way for policy to be made.
I want to pick up on one point of detail that has already been touched on. The point was made in responding to the consultation document that the extent of pupil mobility in London has a big influence on school costs. Mobility has been used in school funding formulae up till now, but it is not used in the f40 proposal. Nor is it in the Government’s proposal. That is a very troubling omission. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rightly underlined the point that high levels of mobility in London add significantly to the cost of running schools here, and that fact should be picked up in the formula.
Research published by the Fischer Family Trust this year estimates that a student who moves in-year will perform 10% less well than the average for their class, and that if three or more students join a class mid-year, attainment for the class as a whole will suffer by one to two percentage points. It estimates the combined cost of pupil mobility to schools and local authorities in London at £35 million a year. That should not be excluded from the formula, although the consultation document proposes excluding it. I understand that mobility is generally low in the authorities of the f40 group, and that they do not want it reflected in the formula, and the Department immediately put that into its version of the formula. Authorities such as mine, where mobility is high, will unfairly lose out on funding if that view prevails, so I hope that it does not.
I am worried that the process that has taken us to this point has been flawed, which is leading to an unfair proposal. I hope that the Minister will accept that schools funding for pupils in disadvantaged areas should not be cut as a result of the new formula, and that factors such as mobility, which have such a big impact in London, should be included in the formula, so that the damage is not inflicted on schools in London.

Helen Hayes: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) on their excellent work with the all-party parliamentary group for London and on calling for this debate today.
The transformation of London’s schools has been remarkable. London now has the highest percentage of good or outstanding schools in the country. Compare that with the situation of 20 years ago, when there had been almost two decades of Tory cuts and a lack of national political leadership on education. I attended an excellent secondary school with brilliant teachers, but there were holes in the roof and often not enough books to go around. It was a national problem in the 1980s, but there were much more serious problems in London, where the desperate state of too many schools was driving population outflow from the capital and generations of children were failed.
The transformation was achieved through leadership on quality standards and investment in buildings, facilities and staff. Schools were given the resources to deliver, but there was a clear expectation from the Labour Government that poor standards, either in schools or in local education authorities, would not be tolerated. Many London councils also had a clear commitment to press hard on education standards. I am hugely proud of the schools in my constituency. I have met so many inspiring, hard-working teachers and see amazing things happening in our schools. There are too many examples to mention them all, but I think of Hill Mead Primary School, an outstanding school under the new inspection framework in the middle of the Moorlands estate in one of the most deprived wards in the whole country, the Gipsy Hill Federation of outstanding primary schools, The Elmgreen School, a parent-promoted secondary school that achieved its best ever GCSE results last year, The Charter School, an outstanding secondary school launched following a parent-led campaign that is now setting up a second school to meet demand, and Evelyn Grace Academy, where Labour’s investment enabled the employment of the late, great Zaha Hadid to build a school in Brixton that won the Stirling prize for architecture.
The funding formula has reflected both the additional costs that London schools have to bear over and above other parts of the country for building work, staffing, catering and a range of other issues, and the additional challenges faced in London, such as higher levels of deprivation, higher incidences of children with special educational needs, looked after children and pupils with English as a second language, and higher pupil mobility. There are also huge challenges around the need for new school places as London’s population expands. The Government’s funding formula proposals could result in London schools losing £260 million or more of funding, which is equivalent to almost 6,000 full-time  teachers or nearly 12,000 teaching assistants. Inner London would be hit the hardest, losing 9.4%, or £586 per pupil on conservative estimates, compared with a 4.5% cut across London.
The impact of such losses would be devastating, leading to larger class sizes, less support for pupils with particular needs and challenges, and the loss of extra-curricular and enrichment activities. Music, art and sport are already stretched as a consequence of the Government’s approach to the curriculum. The cuts will also exacerbate the problems facing teacher recruitment and retention. There is already a crisis in headteacher recruitment in London, and many schools are struggling to recruit teachers. Fifty per cent. of headteachers are over 50 and approaching retirement, and the impact of the housing crisis on younger teachers is devastating. Such cuts will have a terrible impact on the ability of London schools to overcome inequality and disadvantage, and we will be heading back to the bad old days of the 1980s and early 1990s.
Proposing such large cuts to London schools makes no sense, because of all the types of public revenue expenditure, spending on education is perhaps the closest to a straightforward investment rather than a cost. It is an investment in the potential of our children, the talent of the next generation and the economy of our capital city. To fail London’s schools is to fail not only our children—that would be terrible enough—but our economy. The difference in funding between different local education authorities is due in no small part to the commitment of so many London councils to ensuring that there is investment in our children. I have no problem with the principle of levelling the funding formula to some extent, but a fair and independent assessment of need must be made and the funds must be allocated according to need. There must be a levelling up, not a levelling down.
Schools in my constituency do not deserve, nor can they bear, a further cut in their funding of 10% or more, and neither do good or outstanding schools deserve to be forced to become academies. Perhaps, as my colleagues have suggested, the money that would be spent on the lawyers’ fees for forced academisation should be reallocated to help protect the funding for our schools. The involvement of parents in schools is crucial to improving pupil attainment. Parent governors should be present on governing bodies as of right, and I can tell the Minister that parents in my constituency are powerful advocates for funding and resources for their schools. Government plans to stop this are another step in the wrong direction, alongside proposals to cut London’s school funding.
A high-skills, high-wage economy needs investment in skills and training, and investment in our schools is the very foundation of that. A 10% cut to London schools would not be fair, would deliver worse outcomes for some of the most deprived children in the capital and is not acceptable. Most importantly, such a cut does not make any sense. I therefore call on the Government to address inconsistencies in the schools funding formula by levelling up, rather than levelling down—by investing in our schools—because we will all reap the benefits. Schools in London have been on a 20-year journey from being the worst in the country in the dark days of the 1980s and early 1990s to being the best now. Long-term sustained investment and leadership were needed to achieve that. Now is not the time to turn the clock back to a decade of failure.

Catherine West: It is a delight to follow the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). We all seem to agree that there is no point in trying to compete on bleeding stumps and regions by saying, “My stump is more bleeding than yours.” We know that there are enormous issues in rural communities, seaside communities and across cities outside London. However, we are here to talk about London schools and how very proud we are of them. As others have given examples from their constituencies, may I say that Haringey schools are among the most improved in the country, particularly at GCSE level? We know that 43% of pupils on free school meals in Haringey achieved five A* to C grades at GCSE level in the 2014-15 academic year, which is significantly above the national average of 33.1%, and 50% of Haringey’s pupils are eligible for free school meals. Our ranking has gone up to 44th in the country from its position of 90th some years ago. The theme here is continuous improvement and the nub of the matter is that we do not want it to stop.

Ian Mearns: The point my hon. Friend is making exemplifies why we do not need any rounding down, anywhere across the country. We are getting real evidence that the right systems, the right approaches and the right innovation, backed by the right investment, can bring school improvement to every child in the country.

Catherine West: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: it is about believing in every single child in our country, regardless of where they live, what language may be spoken at home or whatever other background they may have. On that point, may I mention the high number of students who have a particular educational need? I am sure that the excellent civil servants will have taken into account in their formula the fact that a lot of children face both language difficulties and other educational needs in London, and many of them come to our advice surgeries. There is nothing more tragic than hearing the stories of certain children who have had a difficult journey through school. I hope that that is reflected in the funding formula. We know that sustaining educational outcomes and improvements in all schools are essential across the piece, and that a reduction in funding would put all of that at risk. We spend a lot of time in this Chamber talking about the productivity puzzle, and we know that education is crucial to understanding why, in terms of our productivity, we as a nation are not doing as well as some of our comparative neighbours. Much of that comes down to our basic skills.
Let me provide one further example from my constituency—a Wood Green primary school. The Trinity Primary Academy required improvement the last time that Ofsted visited, but now 86% of its pupils achieve level 4 or above at key stage 2. I am so very proud of those children, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is too, because many of them live in his constituency. When we go to the schools, we tell the children that we are very proud of them and that we talk about them all the time in this Chamber, and they seem to respond to that.
I will be brief, as I know that others wish to speak. Housing has been mentioned. We know that a deposit for a home in London is £91,000, which is far beyond the average starting wage of a teacher, which is between £20,000 and £30,000. We know that recruitment challenges are likely to be on the horizon, particularly for leadership and senior roles, both at a regional and a national level. The report “Building the Leadership Pool in London Schools”, which was published in November 2015, found that 58% of headteachers in London-based schools are considering leaving their role in the next three years and that 44% of governors in London schools are reporting difficulties in attracting good candidates for senior roles. We have all learned from the school improvement lessons of the past 20 years that school outcomes are very much down to the leadership in schools. I am talking about the wonderful outcomes, the wonderful school exam results and those wonderful smiles on the faces of children when we visit them in August, take photographs of them and praise them up to the heavens. It is a wonderful experience as an MP or an elected representative.
Finally, we have unique challenges in London. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) talked in detail about mobility, which we are very keen to see reflected in the funding formula. There is also English as an additional language, looked-after children, of whom there are many in London, the high levels of deprivation and the population growth. We know that, due to the wonderfully fertile families that we have in London—our baby boom—we have an 8.2% growth, compared with an overall reduction nationally of 0.2%. Although we delight in having a young city, it is a pressure that creates costs within the system and they should be reflected in the funding formula. Forecasts show that the pupil growth rate in London over the six years from 2012 is twice that of any other region and that, by 2017-18, pupil numbers in London are expected to have increased by 18%, which is considerable. There is also the mobility issue and teacher retention.
As we are coming to the end of the Session, may I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, all the very best for tomorrow and Friday?

Andrew Slaughter: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for helping to secure the debate and for his excellent speech, which managed to define all the issues. It was a shame that the only other speech from the Government Benches was that of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). I cannot be as rude about his speech as I would like because he has left the Chamber, so I will limit myself to saying that he purported to be talking about fairness while, in fact, thanks to the sleuthing work of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), we found that he had not only a special interest but special access to the f40 group, which he leads. The long and the short of it is that this is about taking money away from very deprived areas and areas with high levels of need. I am not going to attack any other local authority and say that they do not have a need for education funding, but I resent people coming to the House under  the guise of fairness saying that schools in my constituency, which are struggling, should lose a substantial proportion of their funds.
Let me begin by reading a short email I received a couple of weeks ago from a headteacher. I will not say from which school, although I think it will become clear as I read it out. It is a small, voluntary-aided, outstanding school. The email reads:
“Dear Andy, I would like to alert you to a meeting I will be hosting tonight and tomorrow morning for parents. I will be talking about the proposed cuts to our budget next year if the new national funding formula, which is out for consultation, gets the go ahead. It is likely that our school will suffer a 10% decrease in our budget, this coupled with a 9% decrease this year will leave us financially unviable. I recognise that this is very short notice, but if you happen to be available either tonight at 6 pm, or tomorrow at 9.30 am, I think that both myself and our parents would appreciate your input.”
I managed to get along the next morning and found a substantial number of parents who wanted to talk about a number of issues, including the consultation. They were extremely well-informed. They wanted, first, to talk about places planning and the fact that we have in the borough some new free schools that are half empty while other community schools are oversubscribed. They particularly wanted to talk about the new policy of forced academisation and the problems that have occurred through that. These are not subjects that I raised during the meeting, but subjects that the parents raised and ideas they unanimously opposed.
The parents, and certainly the teachers, wanted to talk about recruitment. Any headteachers to whom I have spoken in my borough say that they are facing real problems in that regard. It is ridiculous, in terms of both need and demand, to compare London with other parts of the country, such as Cambridgeshire, as has happened. The average price of a property in my constituency is knocking £1 million. The Labour council, when it was elected, converted some of the luxury flats that the previous Conservative administration were building into key worker flats specifically for teachers, and it managed to retain some teachers as a consequence. For most teachers, it is impossible to afford to live in those boroughs, even on a good salary.
The email I quoted talked about ongoing cuts. The Government would have us believe that there are no ongoing cuts, but of course there are. Spending on education is frozen and schools are facing rising costs from pension contributions, national insurance contributions and teachers’ pay rises. These costs, before any changes to the funding formula, mean a total of £3 million of real-terms cuts to school budgets in the borough, which is the equivalent of 61 teachers. That has to be found for this financial year before any of the other changes come on stream.
Let us also remember what we are losing. This has already been mentioned, but London schools are doing brilliantly compared with what happened under previous Conservative Governments. In 2002, the percentage of pupils getting five A* to C grades at GCSE was 35%, and by 2013 it had almost doubled to 64%. For disadvantaged pupils, it had more than doubled, from 23% to 49%. That is what we are putting at risk with these politically motivated changes.
What will happen if further cuts of some 10% happen? Fewer subjects will be offered to children. Cuts will be made, which are already being flagged up, to mentoring support and to support staff and, perhaps, to teaching  staff. Enrichment activities such as music, sport and drama have already been cut, and, as Members heard from the email I read out, some teachers, particularly in small schools, wonder whether their schools will remain viable at all. On the whole, these are outstanding, or at least good, schools. That is all being put at risk.
We have talked about English as an additional language, and 49% of pupils in London speak English as an additional language. That is the case in very few parts of the country. We have talked about mobility. There are primary schools in my borough of Hammersmith and Fulham where, over the life-cycle of the school, more than half the children in a particular class will change, with all the consequences mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham and others. I do not think there is a single school in my borough, and probably not in London, that could say it had a bit of slack, that it had money to spare and that it could provide that money.
I fear that the changes are being discussed in a cynical way and that the Government are shroud-waving. We are talking about 10% cuts on average and perhaps up to 20% cuts in some cases. When the second part of the consultation comes out, the cuts will be only 8% or 15%, and we will be told that the Government have done us some favours along the way. They will not have done us any favours. If the term “fair funding” continues to be used, it must genuinely reflect the need.
I see the Minister nodding and I appreciate that. When he comes to respond, I hope he will specifically take account of the huge strides that London schools have made and that he will want to build on them. Given the economic stress affecting every aspect from teachers to school buildings, I hope he will realise that funding levels need to be maintained. We have talked about levelling up—it may be easy to say, but it needs to be done. Other schools around the country should have the same achievement levels as schools in London. We should be a beacon and an example to the rest of the country; we should not be punished for our success.

Ruth Cadbury: I congratulate hon. Members from both sides of the House on securing this debate.
Some months ago I was in the Chamber late one evening waiting for the next business. While waiting, I sat and watched as 15 or 20 MPs, mainly on the Government Benches, stood up one by one to present petitions. The petitions had almost identical wording, the gist of which was that schools in their constituency were losing out because their per child funding was so much less than that of schools in London. I sensed not a coincidental simultaneous rising of anger from schools around the country, but an orchestrated campaign that could only have come from the Government party.
It therefore came as no surprise to me when the Education Secretary announced in March that she was consulting on the schools national funding formula. I wish I could say I was excited at the prospect of more funding for schools in England, so that all could benefit from the levels of funding that schools in London have benefited from in recent years and which have been part of the reason for London schools’ success. However, knowing this Government as I do, I am sure that the outcome of this consultation will mean only one thing—a  significant cut in funding for schools in London. Based on the modelling carried out by London councils, as has been mentioned, London could lose around £245 million per annum. My authority estimates that there will be a significant cut for local schools; the NUT estimates a 12% cut.
My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and I together represent the London Borough of Hounslow, whose schools, despite the challenges that our children and our teachers face, always perform well. Some 87% of borough schools are rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. We are concerned that under the new national funding formula, the dedicated schools grant will mean that schools in Hounslow and London see a reduction in funding in real terms. That is happening now. Even under the current stand-still budgets, with rising recruitment, pension and other costs, head teachers are telling me they are having to make cuts to the curriculum. There are no inefficiencies to cut out now, unless that list of inefficiencies includes music, art and drama as A-level choices, or after-school activities or specialist help for children with additional needs to access learning. I do not call those inefficiencies.
Furthermore, there is already inadequate funding in the high needs block in Hounslow to fund the current and future special educational needs of children who need additional help. The ring-fenced nature of the schools block under the proposals leaves no flexibility. This year Hounslow Schools Forum agreed to transfer £7 million to schools with high needs. These proposals, which will stop such transfers, will create a huge shortfall.
London’s schools have delivered success while facing greater challenges. At the secondary school my sons attended, 70 home languages are spoken, and many children arrive not speaking any English. Recruiting staff and maintaining buildings costs more in London. There are greater levels of deprivation, overcrowding, special needs and looked-after children. The housing crisis means that too many children have to move home and move school, which has a devastating impact on their attainment.
If we are to cut the attainment gap for disadvantaged pupils and to stretch the most able pupils, we need to support them through adequate funding. We cannot ensure that our young people are ready for the world of work and that they can contribute to our economy if we sell them short at school—wherever they go to school.
The success of London’s schools over recent years is undisputed, and that success is a model for all. It is based on focused and adequate funding, and it delivers results. It is right that all schools in England should benefit from adequate funding, and it is right that the formula should be updated. What is wrong is that schools in less deprived areas should benefit while schools with greater challenges face the greatest cuts. Sadly, that is the principle the Government are following in local government funding, and that is why, Mr Deputy Speaker—sorry, Mr Speaker; that will teach me not to look up—I do not trust them not to do the same with school funding. The Government should be levelling up so that all schools in England can achieve the success we have had in London.
If the Government really believe in a growth agenda for our economy, as the Prime Minister suggested this morning, they would do well to prioritise the education of all children in England, and to invest in their schooling  and teachers, as well as in spreading good practice in learning so that all can benefit. It would be great if, for once, the Government could listen to those in local government—from both parties—to ensure that there is sufficient funding to level up school funding allocations so that no local authority area sees a cut in funding.

Rupa Huq: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on not only his stewardship of the all-party group on London but his sterling work with the Justice Committee, which I serve on.
Redistribution is usually seen as a principle of the left. The last Labour Government sought to widen educational opportunity, from guaranteeing nursery places at one end of the age scale to pursuing the massification of higher education further up the age scale. They sought to stop education from being the preserve of the select few.
Achieving a fair funding formula to end the postcode lottery might look attractive at first glance, but plans designed to counter regional disparities and funding gaps have resulted in warnings—we have heard all the projections—that London schools could lose hundreds of millions of pounds to other regions.
I welcome the fact that we are having this debate at this juncture, because we are all somewhat in the dark. It would be good to have clarity today, because what is going around on the grapevine will worry headteachers in the capital. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, London contains some of the poorest communities in the country, and it has fared well under the status quo.
Since the dark days before 1997 and new Labour, when I was going through school—the days of leaking classrooms—London schools have become a success story nationally. With competing levels of disadvantage countrywide and a shake-up due, there are bound to be winners and losers in any new funding formula. When funding is reallocated, it is important that London is not left underfunded and that educational success is part of the equation, along with strong leadership, raising aspiration and outcomes, and investment.
London boroughs have received additional funding for years because the previous Labour Government were keen to help struggling pupils in the capital to catch up with pupils elsewhere in the country. We have heard that London councils estimate that school budgets in London could be slashed by 10%, but some press releases say the figure could be as high as 14%. It is rumoured that the consultation is likely to recommend phasing in whatever comes next so that angry London headteachers do not immediately suffer large cuts.
Whatever the motivation behind all this, I urge the Government to quash the rumours, think again, and heed advice—advice that often comes from their own side, as in the very eloquent opening speech in this debate. There have been some other unlikely bedfellows. The Mayor of London has made representations to the Government. He is not here; he also has a part-time job as a Member of this House, I believe. The Mayor of Hackney and the Mayor of Manchester have made  representations. The Conservative councillor Roy Perry, chairman of the Local Government Association’s children and young people board, has said:
“Councils know their areas best, and currently work in partnership with head teachers and governors to set a local funding formula which allows local needs and priorities to be addressed. We’d want to see this local conversation continue, rather than having all school budgets set in Whitehall.”

Matthew Pennycook: A point that has not been mentioned so far in any great detail is the lack of local flexibility in the proposals set out in the consultation and the implications that flow from that. One implication is that the DFE or the Education Funding Agency will have to know, for example, every school that has a private finance initiative agreement, what the costs are, and how they are going to be met at a time of also maintaining the per-pupil funding formula.

Rupa Huq: My hon. Friend makes the excellent point that local accountability seems to be lost in all this. We have a Government who said that they were in favour of devolution, and instead we have centralised diktats coming from on high.
The National Union of Teachers has claimed:
“Without significant additional resources, plans for reallocation of school funding between areas under the heading of ‘fair funding’ will not address schools’ funding problems and will impose even bigger cuts in many areas.”
In addition, there is the already-raised suspicion that forcing every state sector school in England to become an academy, thereby going into the hands of unaccountable private sector pseudo-charities, is privatisation by the back door. Compulsorily taking schools out of local authority control, which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) mentioned, even when the local community opposes it, and handing them over, with their property deeds, infrastructure and taxpayer-funded education budgets, is massively opposed by many parents.
In my surgery, a complaint that often comes up is insufficient school places. I visit schools regularly; I did the assembly at St Augustine’s Priory School this week and I am doing Derwentwater Primary School’s next week. Teachers there raise a range of concerns, including recruitment and retention in London, particularly fuelled by the pricey property market. They talk to me about curriculum and assessment chaos. I have had 200 pieces of correspondence about forced academisation, with people pointing out that there is no evidence that academies improve outcomes. There is a cost to all this. Barbara Raymond from Acton says:
“We have lost social housing, are losing our health service and now our education system is being decimated.”
Dr Gill Reed of west Ealing is concerned that forced academisation will mean that schools are unable to remove asbestos from their buildings, because apparently Government funding for this was taken away, so if schools are using all their resources to convert into academies, that will put health and safety in our schools at risk as well. Sarah Mitchell, a parent who is also a teacher, is concerned about what will happen to the support services previously provided by local education authorities when they go over to private providers. John Davey of Ealing, in his 46th year of teaching, 21 of those in Ealing, says:
“This doctrinaire stance of the current government, supported by no research and choosing to ignore the available evidence, will do harm to generations of children.”
On the subject of unequal funding, it might just be coincidence, but the boroughs of Wokingham, Surrey, Windsor and Maidenhead have all seen the lowest cuts to their budgets. Between them, they represent the constituencies of half the Cabinet. The constituencies of the Home Secretary, Health Secretary, Leader of the House, Foreign Secretary and Justice Secretary are all covered by those areas, which also received £33.5 million in the transitional grant announced this year. To an alien looking at these things from outside, that seems politically motivated.
It is worth restating the London Councils figure of £245 million. In terms of people, that equates to 5,873 full-time teachers or 11,598 full-time teaching assistants. As has been pointed out, inner London will be hardest hit.
My constituency is in Ealing, which is the most inner of the outer London boroughs. Everyone who has spoken today, from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst onwards, has said that there are dichotomous divides within boroughs. Some areas of Ealing have inner-city characteristics, such as Southall, which is outer London on the map, and Acton, which is inner London on the map and zone 2 for travelcard users.
Historically, we were never part of the Inner London Education Authority, but we have an excellent track record in delivering accessible education for our pupils. In 2015, Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools rated the Ealing borough as having the most improved schools of all local authorities across England, but we do have deprived areas and areas with specific educational challenges, so I would say that our needs are higher than those of other suburban boroughs. None the less, all 14 high schools were rated good or outstanding by Ofsted, as were 59 of our 69 primary schools.
The predistributionary—if I can use that word—aspects remain sketchy, but Ealing Council’s ruling Labour group opposes academisation and wants to launch its own trusts to get around it. Should local authorities be trying to get around Government legislation, or should the two be working together? I would suggest that the latter is the better option. We should not be thinking of reasons to avoid horrid policies from the centre.
The average spend per pupil in Ealing is higher than the national average, as is the case in all but four of the other London boroughs. We have more pupils with English as a foreign language than elsewhere, and other hon. Members have mentioned the issue of churn. London Councils points out that all London schools are at significant risk of losing funding under any redistributive model. The bureaucratic reorganisation of academisation will cost the taxpayer £1.3 billion. Surely that is poor value for the taxpayer when we should be justifying every pound of public expenditure at a time of fiscal belt-tightening.
Improving the life chances of local young people in Ealing should be a key objective in education. Ealing has a good record of success and of driving up standards for young people, with the council and schools working in partnership, but there is now a sense of a double whammy from the reallocated funding formula and the academies plan. Ealing Council officers have built up considerable expertise and flexibility, and the proposals  are to the detriment of our young people. This is a top-down reorganisation from a Government who said, “No more top-down reorganisations”. One would have thought that they would have learned from their costly and unnecessary experiment with the health service.
Paul Goldsmith of Acton is a politics teacher in the independent sector. He wrote to me:
“I am a Governor of an outstanding primary school that under Conservative policy will be forced to be an academy. This means the Head and Governors over the next few years will have to work to the task of academisation, not maintaining an outstanding school.”
He also points out—remember that he is a politics teacher—that Conservatism can be defined as, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, and asks what is the actual problem forced academisation is trying to fix if the school is outstanding. There are also questions about the financial stability and viability of academy chains as things stand. Plenty of academy chains have got into financial difficulties in order to meet Government targets. It is worth reiterating a phrase that has cropped up time and again: we should be levelling up, not levelling down.
On educational inequality, a degree of special pleading is necessary on behalf of London, because London is different. Its population is heading towards 10 million and its year-on-year population increase of 3% over the last Parliament was higher than the 1% for the rest of the country. The number of live births in Ealing increased by 31% between 2002-03 and 2010-11, which means that an additional 1,400 children a year have been born since 2002, although I think things have levelled off a bit. As an Ealing mum, I am probably one of the few people here to have experienced a bulge class. I remember being in a bulge class in 1983 as an Ealing pupil, as well.
There are concerns aplenty about the new proposals and the degree to which they tip over towards equalisation. Usually equalisation sounds like a good thing, but the proposals seem to be intended to benefit rural communities and buy off Conservative Members. We know that the Government have a small majority, and the proposals will ward off the rebellions that might be coming their way. There is a sense that the tinkering is a result of pressure from the heartlands.
I will end with one more quotation, from Rachael Stone, a primary school teacher from Acton who has been in the job for 20 years. She said that when she heard about the plans in the Budget to make her school an academy,
“my immediate response was that it is time for me to find a new career.”
We need to be careful about how we approach the issue and mindful of the need to avoid exacerbating the already plummeting morale among the teaching profession through academisation. We do not want to make a bad situation worse.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said a lot about education in Haringey, and I do not want to repeat it, but I want to speak briefly as a former Higher Education Minister. I have great respect for the Minister and consider him a friend—I have doubts about his politics, but I know that he is an intelligent and intellectual man who applies rigour to his job.
The Minister has heard a lot today about the need to level up funding. All Members recognise that there are real challenges for young people growing up in what would traditionally be described as white working-class environments—certainly in the seaside towns, and also in rural parts of the country. There are also many cities beyond London where there are real concerns about the educational picture and the league tables show that there is a lot to do.
However, the real challenge in our education system is not the gaps between state schools but the gap between state schools and private schools. That is why we have heard a lot about levelling up. The funding per pupil for students attending private schools is still double and more—[Hon. Members: “Triple!”] Indeed, it is triple the funding for young people attending state schools. The ambition of all Governments, of whatever party, ought to be to reduce that gap, not to raid the budget of state schools.
A lot has been said about the success of education here in London, and it has indeed been a success story in the recent period. I was proud to support the London Challenge when it started, and we have certainly seen advances in London, including in my borough, but let us not go too far. Some 60% of young people in London on free school meals do not get five A to C grades in their GCSEs, and there is still a lot of work to do.
This city represents a larger share of our country’s GDP than at any time since 1911, and its competition is with Shanghai, Bombay, Berlin and Bonn. It is with a lot of countries that are investing in their education systems, not raiding schools’ funds. I know that when the Minister looks at the programme for international student assessment league tables, he will see where London stands—he will see that if we muck up the alchemy in London, my God will we undermine education in this country!
In respect of young people with English as a second language and families who have real needs because they are newly arrived in this country, if we change the formula just a bit we can see a huge slip-back in performance. I was at school in the 1970s and ’80s as part of the African-Caribbean community in this country, and I think it is largely agreed that there were significant failures in education for that minority community. We now see the repercussions of that ricocheting across our country.
We also ought to remember the review that the Prime Minister asked me to undertake over the year. More details were published recently. It is wonderful that we have seen a reduction in the number of young people attending young offenders institutions in this country, but there has been no reduction for black, Asian and minority ethnic young people—a lion’s share of them from London. In fact, things have gone the other way. Look, too, at our pupil referral units; there is a lot to do here in London.
Alongside all the issues that have been mentioned, there is the real issue of churn in our communities, because of the major housing crisis affecting the city. Housing is overcrowded. The vast majority of the young people we are concerned about are in private accommodation and move somewhere else every six  months, across borough boundaries. A funding formula that does not take that mobility into account is in real danger of compounding problems, not alleviating them.
Let us think about context. There is a housing crisis. So many Londoners speak English as a second language. Real deprivation still exists right across London. There are the concerns, which we talk about in this place, about guns, knives and gangs in this city. Given all that, I say to the Minister that he should tread very carefully when it comes to making the sort of reductions to London’s funding over the next period that we have been hearing about. We will see a slip back. We will slip down the tables nationally, and our competitors in other countries will overtake us. The Government have to look again and find ways to level up the picture. They should remember that the real conversation about education in this country is not within the state sector, but between the state sector and the private sector.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, which was secured by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), supported by other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed).
It has been a good, positive and wide-ranging debate. In addition to the speeches, we have had contributions by way of intervention from my right hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) and for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham (Lyn Brown), for Westminster North (Ms Buck), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), and the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), for Kensington (Victoria Borwick), for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) and for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). The range of Members involved demonstrates the importance of the debate and the issue. I am pleased that the Minister has listened attentively throughout the debate. He has been exemplary in that respect, taking on board the issues that have been raised across the House.
With the last intervention in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich drew our attention to the dangers of taking away local flexibility while rushing for a national formula. That important issue was not mentioned by anyone else, so I thought it should be captured before I move on.
In an excellent opening speech, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst laid out the landscape really well. He reminded us of London’s high performance, describing it quite rightly as a success story. He also reminded us of the reason for London’s higher level of funding, namely the greater challenges it faces as a result of the number of youngsters with English as a second language, the breadth of the attainment gap and the deprivation in London. All those issues are very significant. His starting point was important; as he said, there is no issue with the principle of fair funding. That point was echoed by many Members from across the House throughout the debate.
What I liked most about the hon. Gentleman’s speech was the sense of celebration—that here we have a success story and something we should capture. That was echoed by comments from many Members on both sides of the House, and by my hon. Friends in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) talked about the huge strides that London has made. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) reminded us that nine out of 10 London schools are good or outstanding. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North talked about the transformation of London schools since 2003 through the London Challenge. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) reminded us of the many inspiring, hard-working teachers across her constituency, whose work is mirrored across the whole of London.
There is therefore something to celebrate, but there are concerns that it might be under threat. My hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow, and for Croydon North, pointed to analysis that suggested that funding might decrease for London; one estimate suggested that the cut in funding might be as great as £260 million a year. I understand why some hon. Members are rightly concerned about that, because it would be a huge funding cut.
In a thoughtful and considered contribution, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) explored the concern in the House that perhaps things are not being done in the right and proper way. Those perceptions may not be true, but that concern is palpable, and I am sure that the Minister’s commitment in an intervention, when he said that he would meet groups of Members and engage properly with them, went a long way to reassuring my right hon. Friend. However, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said, there is concern that there has been some special interest and access—not something that anybody wishes to happen. If that is the perception among some, the Minister’s generous and immediate commitment to meeting Members who have expressed concern must be followed by thorough action and engagement.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham and others drew attention to the impact that mobility has on school costs in London. Much reference was made to housing issues in London—to the cost of housing, and to the nature of housing estates. I hope that the Minister will consider ways to include that mobility factor in the formula as it is developed. The former Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), put the case for fair funding: if London is getting a good deal, everybody else needs to get one, too. He made that fair challenge in his usual passionate way.
Everyone will agree with the principle of fair funding, but the rub is that one person’s fair funding can end up being another person’s unfair funding. Although I commend the f40 group for its patient and persistent campaign to address the funding needs of its schools and children—indeed, I have been a supportive officer of that group in the past—care must be taken in how that is progressed. The Government have done the right thing in taking careful steps along that road, consulting before acting, and evaluating the consequences before proceeding. However, as this debate demonstrates, there is more to be done in that arena if the Government are to move  forward with the confidence of the whole House. There is still no detail about who will be the winners and losers, and by how much, and that major concern naturally leads to the sort of speculation that we have heard today. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will provide more details, and view today’s debate as a constructive contribution to the ongoing consultation.
Labour’s candidate for Mayor is right to stand up for the capital’s children, and to express the concern that if there are the cuts that some analysts are predicting, it would do huge damage to the next generation of Londoners. The current London Mayor, together with Jules Pipe, chair of London Councils, made clear the case for ongoing investment in London’s schools in a joint letter to the Secretary of State. They are all right. Schools are the first part of the skills and employment supply chain, and any reduction in funding is likely to impact negatively on the growth and productivity of local economies. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) made that point in a good and powerful contribution to the debate. She also talked about the schools and school communities that she is proud to represent, and which have made some of the greatest strides in school improvement over the past year.
The Department for Education’s fair funding consultation document states that it intends to address the variability in funding levels by distributing more funding to areas that are underfunded, while
“gradually reducing the funding of schools that have been generously funded to date”.
It is understandable that many in London fear that this will result in severe cuts to London schools’ budgets, with a negative impact on the capital’s young people. We all know that, with or without fair funding, all schools face a real-terms 8% cut in funding during the lifetime of this Conservative Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith detailed the type of budget pressures schools are under and having to manage. Schools are already having to cut back on extracurricular activities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said, extracurricular activities benefit low-income children the most, raising aspiration and opportunities. It is a shame that they are already under pressure.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) pointed out, schools are already taking subjects off the curriculum to balance the books. There is already pressure in the system, and there is a worry that there may be more pressure in the future. Any headteacher will tell you that teaching assistants and teachers will be next in the firing line if there are further reductions in spending. Dramatic reductions in funding in some areas will make the situation much worse. It is welcome that the Chancellor has committed £500 million to ease the transition from one system to another. However, the Treasury has said that this funding is dependent on how much the Department is willing to contribute. As the Department is faced with the need for more cash for its forced academisation plans, that has raised perfectly reasonable concerns. It is therefore imperative that we have more detail on both the funding formula and the funding underpinning the recent academisation announcement, so that we can see whether the amount of transitional funding available will be adequate to mitigate the costs of the changes.
The indicative modelling carried out by London Councils suggests that the Government would need to increase the direct schools grant by about £521 million, a figure alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North, to protect completely all schools—not just schools in London—in local authorities that would lose money under the national funding formula. So £500 million is being made available, and the modelling suggests that £521 million a year is required to ensure that no school will be worse off. A lot of Members have talked about levelling up, rather than levelling down.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) made the last contribution to the debate. He reminded us, in his usual highly eloquent style, that the greatest disparity is between funding for pupils in the state system and pupils in the private system. I agree with him that nothing should happen that is to the detriment of any pupils in the state system. We should aspire to match the best anywhere in the world. He alluded to the programme for international student assessment league tables and, in his inimitable fashion, said, “Don’t muck about with the alchemy in London.” I think that is the phrase of the debate. We should be careful what we muck about with as we take this forward.
To be fair, I think the Government are taking their plans forward carefully at the moment. There are things they could do more carefully in the light of this debate. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to give us his view on the levelling-up approach. Given the dramatic rise in standards under Labour’s London Challenge and investment in schools in the capital and across the country, is the Minister concerned that taking away funds from London schools will impact on results and outcomes? That concern has been echoed by Members across the Chamber.
I have one helpful suggestion—I am a helpful chap—for the Minister to consider as part of the ongoing consultation. The Secretary of State’s plan to force all good and outstanding schools to become academies against their wishes is estimated to cost £1.3 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) said very succinctly, that is poor value for the taxpayer, and I tend to agree. Nobody wants this forced academy programme—certainly not the Minister’s Back Benchers, and certainly not local Conservative councillors. If Ministers dropped this plan, they would have more cash to play with to help deliver a truly fair funding formula. That would have the dual benefit of helping to deliver a manifesto commitment and leaving Education Ministers to focus their energy and effort on the things that really matter to parents and communities, without being distracted by an unhelpful row over forced academisation. Instead, Ministers would be able to tackle the real problems of place planning, teacher supply and exam chaos.
Labour supports fairer funding, but as always, the devil will be in the detail, and the jury is still out on whether there will be adequate mitigation in the system that this Government are bringing forward.

Sam Gyimah: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for securing this important debate, and I commend all the contributions,  which have been hugely informative about education funding. As constituency MPs and parents, the subject is close to all our hearts.
For our country to grow stronger, fairer, wealthier and more secure, we need good schools and a well-educated population. Investing in education is an investment in the future of our children and our nation as a whole. That is why the Department is committed to delivering educational excellence everywhere—not just in London, but everywhere in the country—so that irrespective of where a child grows up, they can expect the best education possible.
There is no doubt that we are investing in education. The spending review confirmed a real-terms protection for the core schools budget. Throughout this Parliament, the money available for our schools will increase as pupil numbers increase. This will mean more than £40 billion next year, including pupil premium funding worth £2.5 billion a year targeted at the most disadvantaged pupils. That is also protected and will be maintained at current rates.
The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) made the point about who had been engaged in making the case for funding reform. He is normally assiduous and careful in how he puts his points across, but on this occasion I would like to disabuse him of the notion that the cross-party f40 group has somehow had special access. I met a range of stakeholders both before and during the consultation, including the Local Government Association, while London councils have met either me or my officials in the Department, and that will continue. I have also met a number of Members of all parties to discuss specific funding needs in their constituencies, and I have a number of union representatives on speed dial as far as this issue is concerned.

Stephen Timms: I do not think that the Minister would deny that there have been many discussions. I read out a list of the dates of the meetings, set out on the f40 website, between f40 representatives and the Department. I think he would accept that there has been much more discussion with that particular group than there has been with the others to which he has referred.

Sam Gyimah: Ministers cannot be criticised on the one hand for not listening, and then be criticised on the other for listening too much. The truth is that my door is always open, and I am happy to meet whoever knocks on my door to discuss the issues as often as is necessary to address them.
There is an important need to address the funding system. There is a risk that the current system will not deliver the outcomes that we want for our children. For too long, schools have struggled with funding systems that are both unfair and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested, opaque. The amount of money that schools receive is now an accident of history, not a reflection of the needs of their pupils or of children.
Local populations have changed over the past decade. For example, the proportion of children receiving free school meals in Manchester has fallen by 31% since 2005, while in Blackpool it has increased by 19%. However, schools funding has not kept up. The distribution of funding today cannot reflect the needs of our children  if it has not changed in more than 10 years. The key question is not about levelling up or levelling down; it is about whether funding is addressing the individual needs of children.
The impact of the current funding system is hugely unfair. Let me look closer to home for the benefit of those who have spoken today. A child who is sent to school in Bexley will attract £4,635, but in next-door Greenwich, that suddenly becomes £6,020. Different local authorities also make different decisions about how to fund their schools. In 2015, Brent chose not to allocate any funding to pupils receiving free school meals, whereas Ealing chose to allocate nearly £1,700 to each primary pupil in exactly the same position.
We are committed to fixing that. I am proud to say that last month we launched the consultation referred to by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), on new, fair, national funding formulas for schools and high needs. Our aims are clear, and I hope that Members in all parts of the House will agree that they are worthy. We want to create a formula that is fair, objective, transparent and simple. It should be clear how much funding is following each pupil, and that should be the same wherever they are in the country. Headteachers or academy trusts should know that if they move to take over underperforming schools, no matter where they are, their budgets will be fair and their schools will have the opportunity to excel.
Allocation is also important. We must allocate funding for high-needs provision, which has not been dwelt on today, on a fair and transparent basis. For too long, funding allocations have varied without reason. Parents and children with high needs deserve to know that the funding they require will be there, irrespective of where they choose to live. They deserve that security; they deserve that equality.

Bob Neill: I am grateful for what the Minister is saying. Will he assure me that he will present direct proposals to deal with the issue that was raised by our friend and colleague Councillor David Simmonds on behalf of the Local Government Association—the need to protect the high-needs element within any new arrangement for the formula?

Sam Gyimah: As my hon. Friend knows, what has taken place so far is the first stage of our consultation. The next stage will come up with detailed allocations for local authorities, but it will also make clear how each block within the dedicated schools grant would function within the system, and will certainly take account of my hon. Friend’s concerns about the high-needs block.

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister pay particular attention to the question of whether the schools block should include, as many have argued today, an element that would recognise the mobility within local authorities that we have been discussing?

Sam Gyimah: That is an important point. We will, of course, consider how the issue of mobility can best be addressed in the funding system. There are a number of ways of doing that, but it is certainly a priority in our determination of the new formula, along with in-year growth, population growth and so forth.
Despite the clear principles behind our national funding formula, there are still some myths about the potential impact on London, some of which we have heard about today. I want to take the opportunity to put those myths to bed. There is, for instance, the myth that the national funding formula is about London versus the rest of the country. There are two grounds on which that is simply wrong. First, the funding formula will deliver fairness to all parts of the country, whether they are urban or rural, shire or metropolitan, north or south. Secondly, London is not a homogenous area. At this moment, a parent who moved just a few miles from Haringey to Hackney—this point was made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West)—would increase the funding for their child by £1,000. We heard about areas such as Croydon—the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) made an interesting speech in this respect—that are struggling to recruit teachers because they cannot pay as much as better funded areas just up the road. We need a fairer funding system within London, just as much as we do across the whole country.
The second myth I want to dispel relates to funding for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, on which the right hon. Member for East Ham wanted a specific answer. I hope I can assure him that where pupils have additional needs, we will provide extra funding. This is a fundamental principle of the national funding formula to ensure that such pupils can overcome entrenched barriers to success.

Ruth Cadbury: I thank the Minister for his willingness to listen and the depth of his investigation into all the different issues around the funding formula. In the context of disadvantaged pupils, he just talked about “additional needs”. What does he mean by that? Is he talking about special needs or the issues that Opposition Members have been raising about the inherent disadvantages experienced by children living on very low incomes in many of our communities?

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Lady raises a good point. I am talking about additional needs in both respects, and during my speech I will address them. Obviously, some additional needs are addressed within the school system, and some within the high-needs block, but I will touch on both of those.
As our recent consultation made clear, the formula should contain a significant element of additional funding for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, and there should be funding on top of the basic per-pupil amount for pupils on free school meals, pupils with low prior attainment and pupils who speak English as an additional language. The higher the level of need in a school, the higher the funding will be. I could not be clearer on this point, and anyone who engaged with the consultation will have seen that set out in black and white.
Some have suggested that the national funding formula will not take into account the higher costs faced by schools in London. Again, our proposals could not be clearer. We consulted on a proposal for an area cost adjustment—a general increase for schools facing extra costs from higher wages—which will be important for schools in London. Our second consultation will detail exactly how this would work.
The final myth I would like to address is that so-called cuts in London will undo the huge improvement in standards in recent years. Schools in London have improved tremendously in recent years. It is testament to the hard work of teachers, headteachers, pupils and their parents. There are schools up and down the country, however, that are still getting excellent results in spite of the funding system, not because of it. The national funding formula will put funding where it is needed, so that all schools have the best opportunity to deliver a world-class education for their pupils.
As hon. Members have made clear, London’s schools are thriving and continue to thrive. Moreover, in the last 10 years, the percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals has dropped from 27% to 18%, and the number of pupils living in highly deprived areas has also dropped dramatically, but of course challenges remain. The funding system will recognise the challenges in London. That is why London will continue to benefit from the pupil premium, receiving £436 million this year—nearly 20% of the total across the country. This is vital. We can see excellent examples across London of pupil premium funding being used to ensure that disadvantaged students receive the best opportunities for their education.
As for future funding, as I have said, we will publish proposals on the details for schools and high needs in the second consultation. In the meantime, hon. Members will understand why it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on the specific impacts of the new formula in London; suffice it to say that the new formula will reflect the responses to the consultation, rather than the specific requests made by the cross-party f40 group. The consultation so far has been very important, because there were several issues on which we needed answers in order to do the detailed modelling.

Steve Reed: I understand why the Minister cannot give more detailed responses now, but will he agree to meet officers of the all-party group for London, when we reach the next phase, to go into more detail, when the information is available, so that we can discuss with him whether it meets the concerns raised in this debate?

Sam Gyimah: I would be delighted to meet the all-party group to discuss these issues before, during and after the consultation.
We still have a big and difficult job ahead of us. Reorganising £40 billion of schools funding is not an easy task, and it is one that we should carry out carefully and thoughtfully. We need to think through the transitions, as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) so eloquently said. I continue to find encouragement from the wide support that exists for these reforms across the country, throughout the sector and between political parties. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for putting this matter on the agenda again in the Chamber. Providing educational excellence everywhere is a key part of our mission, and it is something that we need to do very carefully. After all, this is about this country’s future. A number of important points have been raised in the debate, and they will be reflected in the consultation and in the formula. I look forward to engaging with Members across the House to ensure that we have fairer funding for all our schools and all our children.

John Bercow: I know that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) will make a brief wind-up speech. Even though he is a distinguished lawyer, if on this occasion he could confine himself to the norm of two or three minutes, we would all be greatly delighted, especially those who are waiting to present petitions and the Member who has the Adjournment debate. So the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst really just has an opportunity to clear his throat.

Bob Neill: Thank you for giving me that time, Mr Speaker. I should like to thank all Members who have participated in the debate, and to thank the Backbench Business Committee for making it possible. This has been a constructive debate. It is not always necessary to approach these subjects in a partisan fashion, although there have been some partisan speeches. If we strip out the rhetoric, however, we find key issues on which there is common ground, as the Minister and the shadow Minister recognised. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances about meeting the group and about taking on board some of the key issues that have been flagged up around the high-needs element, mobility, which is particularly important, special educational needs, and cost pressures and cost adjustment. He will know that the devil is in the detail, and his willingness to engage with members of the group is appreciated. This is obviously an important issue, and it was therefore important to ventilate it on the Floor of the House before the consultation finished. I am grateful to all Members for their help.

Margot James: That was succinct.

John Bercow: It was extremely succinct. We are greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the Government’s intention to implement a new funding formula for schools from April 2017; welcomes the Department for Education’s commitment to hold a detailed consultation on this proposal; calls on the Government to recognise the unique challenges schools in London face; and further calls on the Government to ensure that any changes to the funding model are both fair and proportionate to London’s needs.

PETITION - CHILDREN’S CENTRE SERVICES IN CORBY

Tom Pursglove: I rise to present a petition relating to children’s centre services in Corby which has the support of more than 1,700 people. Children’s centres mitigate many of the challenges faced by children in Corby, and their services are relied on by many local families.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Corby and the surrounding areas,
Declares that children in Corby statistically fair worse in education, income levels, life expectancy and health than children in many other parts of the UK; further that Children’s Centres mitigate these challenges; further that many families in Corby depend upon the services provided by their local Children’s Centre; further that Northamptonshire County Council is proposing to cut the budget of Corby’s Children’s Centre services by 25%;  further that these additional funding cuts are unfair and indefensible; and further that an online petition on this matter has been signed by over 1,700 individuals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Northamptonshire County Council to stop their proposed funding cuts of 25% to the budget of Corby’s Children’s Centre services.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001689]

PETITION - BOWEL CANCER SCREENING

Caroline Ansell: I rise to present a petition on the subject of bowel cancer screening in the names of Lauren, Peter, David and Scott Backler. My constituent, Lauren Backler, lost her mum to bowel cancer, the second most common cancer in terms of the number of lives it takes each year. She was only 56, which meant she was too young to be part of the screening process in England, although not in Scotland, where screening starts at the age of 50. There is public demand for the screening age in England to be brought into line with that of Scotland, as has been evidenced by the online petition in Lauren’s name which has now gathered more than 216,000 signatures. In a Westminster Hall debate on this subject, the Minister recognised the significant level of parliamentary interest in the matter.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the age at which bowel cancer screening is offered by the NHS is too high at 60 years old, with up to 6,000 people in their 50s diagnosed with the condition each year; further that, when bowel cancer is diagnosed in its later stages, the five-year survival rate is 7%, compared to 97% when caught early; and further that an online petition on this matter has been signed by over 163,000 individuals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Health to consider the case for lowering the age of bowel cancer screening in England to the age of 50, in line with the screening age in Scotland.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001690]

Taxi Licensing Regulations

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Kris Hopkins.)

Andrew Gwynne: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that I was able to have this debate today, not least because I raised the matter at business questions last Thursday before I had seen the email that had already arrived from your office informing me that this date had been allocated. I do not know whether it is the curse of Andrew Gwynne, but the last time I applied for and was successful in securing an Adjournment debate, it was on the last day before a recess. This time, it is on the day before the local elections. Nevertheless, it is a great opportunity to raise a matter of importance on the Floor of the House.
I should start by declaring an interest in that my wife, Councillor Allison Gwynne, is the cabinet member for environmental services, which includes taxi licensing, at Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council. It was on a visit with her to the excellent taxi licensing department at Tameside during the February recess that people at the office raised with me some concerns about the operation of the current legislation.
The licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles, drivers and operators has been a function of local authorities in England and Wales for over 350 years. Local authorities are expected to run a licensing regime that ensures that fare-paying members of the public are carried comfortably and safely in vehicles that are suitable and roadworthy by drivers who are trustworthy and responsible. The legislation governing taxi and private hire licensing is quite old, but each local authority can determine its own policies and licence conditions to ensure that the taxi and private hire trade suits its area and its residents.
Long before the invention of the motor vehicle, it was recognised that drivers of public hire, horse-drawn carriages held a uniquely trusted position. Members of the public, who were often vulnerable and alone, got into their vehicles and were effectively at the mercy of the driver for the duration of the journey. The first hackney carriage licences were issued in London in 1662 in response to a rapid increase in the numbers of for-hire coaches and coachmen plying the streets for work. They were causing congestion, and fights over fares were a regular occurrence, and it was recognised that a number of the coachmen were undesirable characters who were likely to pose a risk to their passengers.
Further legislation was introduced over time, and local authorities now issue licences under two key pieces of legislation. The first is the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. It governs the licensing of hackney carriages, which are public hire vehicles that can ply for trade by driving around until they are flagged down by a member of the public or can wait for passengers at taxi ranks. The second piece of legislation is the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which governs the licensing of private hire vehicles, drivers and operators. Private hire vehicles cannot ply for hire or wait at ranks; they can only pick up passengers who have pre-booked the journey via a licensed private hire operator.
The two-tier system brings many complications. Members of the public, and even some members of the taxi trade, often become confused by the differences between the  two regimes and how the legislation is applied. In addition to the two separate, distinct pieces of legislation and the two types of vehicles, local authorities are also able to impose their own separate, additional policies and conditions that apply to the vehicles, drivers and operators licensed in their area. That is why in some authorities, such as Tameside and Stockport, which cover my constituency, we will see only London-style black cabs being used as hackney carriages. In other boroughs and council areas, we will see all manner of saloons, hatchbacks and other standard vehicles being used as hackney carriages as well as private hire vehicles. Some areas require drivers to pass a driving test, an English language test, a local knowledge test and courses on how to behave appropriately, whereas other areas simply require a driving licence and a Disclosure and Barring Service check. In addition, the Transport Act 1985 allows local authorities the option of retaining or removing a limit on the number of—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Kris Hopkins.)

Andrew Gwynne: As I was saying, in addition the Transport Act 1985 allows local authorities the option of retaining or removing a limit on the number of hackney carriage licences they issue. Prior to 1985, local authorities could simply set a limit on the number of hackney carriage licences they issued. That meant the licences became an asset, with a monetary value; nobody could simply apply for a hackney carriage licence if the limit had been reached, so the only way to obtain one was by purchasing the rights to a licence from an existing licence holder. Values of hackney carriage licences reached £30,000 or more—for the rights to the licence only; that did not include the vehicle.
The 1985 Act required local authorities either to remove their limit on hackney vehicle licences, de-restricting numbers, or to justify keeping a limit by holding an “unmet demand survey” every three years. The survey would assess the demand for hackneys in the council area and adjust—or increase—the set limit by the required number. In councils that retained a limit on hackney numbers, hackney licences—the plates—retained their value, and to this day taxi owners in these areas still view the value of their plates as an asset that they can cash in at some stage in the future by selling the plates on. In councils that removed their limit, the hackney trade was simply allowed to find its own level. There is only a certain amount of demand for hackney carriages, and, theoretically, hackney vehicle numbers will self-limit, because of the demand, or otherwise, for hackney carriages in each local authority area.
Since the existing hackney legislation was introduced in 1847, hackney carriages have always been able to carry out pre-booked work in the same way as private hire vehicles. Hackney carriage drivers can supplement their income by hiring a radio or PDA—personal digital assistant—from a private hire operator and carrying out private hire work alongside all the other private hire vehicles and drivers. The legislation also currently allows vehicles licensed as hackney carriages in one area to carry out pre-booked private hire work anywhere else in  England and Wales, apart from in London and, bizarrely, Plymouth, which are covered by separate pieces of legislation. This is not a loophole or a fiddle, but something that has always been permitted; it is not expressly prohibited by the existing legislation.
The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 introduced legislation that, for the first time, governed private hire vehicles, drivers and operators, and set the legal parameters within which these vehicles were allowed to operate. This legislation did not affect the ability of hackney carriages to carry out pre-booked work anywhere in the country, because in 1976 all authorities had limits on the number of hackney licences, so there was no huge problem with hackney carriages working “cross-border”. There was always sufficient work for hackneys within their own boroughs and counties, and they were therefore not tempted to move to another authority to pick up additional work.
The introduction of the 1985 Act did not have a massive effect at first; a few local authorities removed their restriction on hackney numbers, but most kept the limit. Over time this has changed, and many more authorities have removed the limit, but matters only started coming to a head in the mid-2000s. The problems started in the north-east of England. In 2006, Newcastle City Council noticed that a number of their private hire drivers and owners left the authority and obtained hackney vehicle licences from the neighbouring borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, as it did not impose a limit on hackney numbers and its procedures for obtaining licences were much easier than those set out in Newcastle. In two years, the number of hackney licences issued by Berwick rose from 42 to 672. The vast majority of those vehicles were owned by people who lived in Newcastle and used their vehicles for private hire work in Newcastle. For Newcastle City Council, there were a number of problems. First, officers from Newcastle had no powers to deal with complaints or issues involving Berwick vehicles and drivers. Only the licensing borough’s offices can deal with matters relating to their vehicles and their drivers.
Secondly, Newcastle had lost the ability to regulate numbers and, thirdly, there were more serious concerns that the much stricter policies and conditions imposed by Newcastle on its hackney and private hire fleet were being undermined by the influx of Berwick-licensed vehicles and drivers who were regulated by much less strict policies and conditions.
The matter went to court via a judicial review, which was heard in the High Court. The judge in that case, although sympathetic to the issues raised by Newcastle City Council, stated that Berwick-licensed vehicles and drivers were operating entirely within the relevant legislation and were doing nothing illegal.
That is now pertinent to Greater Manchester, because, although all 10 of the Greater Manchester metropolitan boroughs have fairly stringent rules and regulations in place governing who can and cannot apply for hackney licences, there is a problem in that a neighbouring authority across the county boundary in Lancashire is issuing quite a large number of hackney licences. We are now seeing those licence holders operating within Greater Manchester. I am referring to Rossendale, which is a small Lancashire district council. About a decade or so ago, following the Berwick judgment, the number of applications for hackney carriage and vehicle and driver licences started to increase in that particular authority.
At that time—I appreciate that things have changed—Rossendale’s standards were less restrictive than those of the 10 Greater Manchester metropolitan boroughs. It did not, for example, require applicants to pass an English language test or a local knowledge test. It also had much less restrictive conditions for hackney vehicles. It would, in effect, license almost all types of vehicles—saloons, estates and hatchbacks and so on—as hackney vehicles. Its age limits for vehicles were more relaxed and vehicles were tested to a lower standard than that of the Greater Manchester boroughs.
Previously, those policies and conditions had been fine for a small borough such as Rossendale, but it started to become apparent that the owners and drivers of these cabs were not in fact using the vehicles in that particular local authority. They were using them as private hire vehicles in other local authorities—indeed, lots of other local authorities. They started appearing in other Lancashire boroughs first: Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley and Hyndburn. They then started popping up in Greater Manchester boroughs: Oldham, Rochdale, Bury, Central Manchester, Tameside and Stockport. By 2015, Rossendale was issuing approximately 2,500 hackney vehicle licences a year and more than 3,000 hackney driver licences. By comparison, Tameside council currently has 150 hackney carriages and 450 private hire vehicles. To put that into context, the population of Tameside is around 221,000, and Rossendale has a population of fewer than 70,000 residents. It is clear what is going on.
As I have already said, no law is being broken. Rossendale-licensed vehicles are allowed to operate across almost the whole of England, and indeed that is what they do. They are working in Leeds, Bradford, Birmingham, Bristol and even Cornwall. There are large numbers of these vehicles operating in Greater Manchester, and licensing offices within Greater Manchester’s 10 boroughs are virtually powerless to deal with these vehicles and drivers. Some are known to have been refused licences for perfectly good reasons by the Greater Manchester local authorities.
In areas where policies and conditions are strict and high standards are required, the influx of out-of-county vehicles has been a particular problem. Members of the public regularly complain about poor standards of English and drivers who do not know the local area. Licensing officers and managers are concerned that their high standards are being seriously undermined, and there is particular concern in the light of what happened in Rochdale and Rotherham that child safeguarding could also be undermined.
To be fair, Rossendale has moved on that. For instance, the council has now adopted the Greater Manchester-approved convictions policy, which should ensure that its drivers are in future vetted to the same standards as drivers across Greater Manchester. In addition, Rossendale council has just introduced an intended use policy whereby, following the judgment in the Berwick case, it will now ask applicants whether they intend to use their vehicle within the borough of Rossendale and will refuse to grant a licence if the answer is no, but the policy will be slow to take effect as the council has given it a soft landing and it will not apply until 2017. Plus, if we do not change or tighten up the law, another council, if not this council or Berwick, will spot an income-generating opportunity in much the same way.
I want to turn briefly to the Law Commission report. The Minister will know that between 2013 and 2014, the Law Commission conducted a consultation on potential new taxi legislation in England and Wales. At the start of the consultation, it stated that it was looking to take a “clean sheet of paper” approach and potentially redesign the whole licensing regime from the ground up. Some early suggestions included removing the two-tier taxi licensing structure entirely and introducing a single national standard for vehicles and drivers.
The Law Commission was overwhelmed by the number of responses to the consultation, and the final report was far from the clean sheet approach that it promised. The final recommendations were, in fact, extremely watered down and seemed simply to be a re-write of the existing legislation with a few problems ironed out. Since publication of the report, it seems to have been shelved and no further proposals for changes to legislation have emerged, apart from two small ones that were introduced in October 2015 via the Deregulation Act 2015. The first was that drivers’ licences should last for three years and operators’ licences for five years, and the second was that operators should now be allowed to sub-contract bookings to operators in other councils.
I want to be positive in the last few minutes of my speech and give examples of how we might be able to deal with the issue. I have a number of ideas. First, I suggest that there could be a requirement that operators could operate only with vehicles and drivers licensed within their own council area. This would prevent out-of-council vehicles and drivers from working outside their licensed areas on other operating systems. Secondly, I suggest national standards for vehicles and drivers. If standards were consistent across the country, there would be no need for applicants to travel out of their council area looking for a more relaxed licensing regime. Thirdly, licensing officers could be given powers to deal with any licensed vehicle and driver, not just those vehicles and drivers licensed within their own council area. Fourthly, could the Minister consider making changes through the buses Bill? That might seem an odd piece of legislation to choose, so let me explain to the Minister why I think that it is pertinent.
Over the past few years in Greater Manchester we have seen a number of evening and bank holiday bus services removed because the subsidy from Transport for Greater Manchester has been removed, but rather than leave communities isolated—this is quite an innovative idea—TFGM has produced something called Local Link, which is a local telephone number that any user within the old area of the bus service that has been removed, or when a bus is not running, can ring to get a private hire taxi cab. The taxi will come and pick the person up and take them door to door, so long as that is within roughly the same area as the old bus service that was withdrawn. Because of the small numbers of people concerned, that is cheaper than subsidising a bus service used by very few people.
However, TFGM is using private hire companies in Greater Manchester that may well employ private hire drivers and vehicles that were not licensed by any of the 10 Greater Manchester authorities, and that raises some concerns for the travelling public. There might be an opportunity at least to give Greater Manchester additional  regulatory powers in that respect through the legislation that I hope we will be pleased to see in the Queen’s Speech next week.
Lastly, I want to give a quick plug for guide dogs. I have worked with the charity Guide Dogs, which told me in advance of this debate that as the law stands, drivers who refuse to take passengers accompanied by guide dogs can face a modest fine through the courts, but not necessarily a revocation of their licence. It would be entirely up to the issuing authority whether such drivers were able to continue operating and, as we have heard, the issuing authority does not have to consider the interests of the population in whichever area the driver was operating.
To sum up, I hope the Minister will agree with the points that I have raised this evening. Privately, I am sure that he will agree that the taxi licensing regime is drastically outdated. I implore him to get his skates on and have his Department respond in full to the Law Commission report on taxi licensing. Let us sort out the problems that we face in Greater Manchester, and let us sort out the guide dogs issue too.

Andrew Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on securing the Adjournment debate this evening. I know that the topic of taxi and private hire licensing issues has been covered in previous debates in the House. Colleagues are very interested in the subject, but I doubt whether many colleagues could match the historical knowledge that the hon. Gentleman brought to the debate this evening.
As hon. Members will appreciate, although the Government are responsible for creating the legislative framework within which local licensing authorities license taxis and private hire vehicles, responsibility for licensing rests with the local authority. It is the local authority’s responsibility to decide who is a suitable person to hold a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence or a private hire operator’s licence. The local authority is responsible for ensuring that all its licensees comply with the rules and regulations that govern their industry.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to raise on the Floor of the House his concerns about what is happening locally in his area—he obviously has an inside track on the situation in his council—but as licensing is the responsibility of the local authority, I may not be able to address all his points.
Let me start by emphasising the importance of the taxi and private hire vehicle industry. The traditional taxi has become an icon of passenger transport in the UK and around the world. The taxi industry has played a key role in keeping Britain moving for many years, and has a history and reputation that drivers are rightly proud of. The UK’s taxi industry is recognised as one of the best in the world. All the vehicles are of a high standard and are driven by skilled and knowledgeable drivers. I admire the time and dedication that prospective drivers put into becoming taxi drivers—perhaps most famously London cabbies, who have to learn the world-famous “knowledge” of London. That brings the reward of having the unique right to ply for hire on the streets.
In the 1960s, minicabs began to appear in London and the private hire vehicle industry began growing across the UK. Licensing and regulation have ensured that when using such services the public have the same assurance of safety as when using a taxi, and have raised standards throughout the private hire sector. As of March 2015, there were 242,200 licensed taxi and private hire vehicles in England—an increase of 9.3% in just two years—and 69% of those vehicles are private hire vehicles. The availability of taxis and private hire vehicles offers the public real choice: they can instantly hire a taxi in the street or at a taxi rank, or they can pre-book a taxi or a private hire vehicle. When pre-booking, passengers can make an informed choice based on factors such as price, availability and quality. The combination of taxi and private hire ensures that the needs of as many customers as possible can be met.

Andrew Gwynne: If a licensing authority such as Tameside or Stockport in my constituency decides for perfectly legitimate reasons that somebody is unsuitable to be a taxi operator in its area, should it not have the power to enforce that to prevent that person from getting a licence from another local authority and operating on the streets of Tameside or Stockport?

Andrew Jones: I am coming to cross-border working and licensing. We have had some terrible cases across the country, which have clearly shown that the system has failed in certain areas. We all know these cases, and they are positively shocking.
The industry is seeing real change as new technology provides new ways for the public to engage taxis and private hire vehicles. Smartphone booking apps are now available for taxis and private hire vehicles, offering passengers easy access to services, more choice, faster pick-ups and options for sharing, which can reduce cost. It is encouraging that the London taxi trade has been at the forefront of that technological change. There are now numerous smartphone apps for booking a taxi, and more drivers are embracing cashless payment options. However, that new technology is challenging the traditional operating boundaries between the taxi and private hire trades. That is straining the relationship between local authorities and the industry, but by working in partnership they can deliver a modern industry that continues to provide choice and high standards.
I would like to say a few words about an issue that is particularly important to me. The Government are committed to building transport networks that work for everyone, ensuring that disabled people have the same access to services, and the same opportunities to travel, as other members of society. Disabled people are heavily reliant on buses and particularly on taxis and private hire vehicles, which are critical. That is why the Government intend to commence sections 165 and 167 of the Equality Act 2010 this year. That will impose duties on the driver of a taxi to accept and assist a wheelchair user and not to charge extra for doing so.
I would also like to mention the Government’s ongoing work to improve air quality and reduce emissions in the taxi and private hire sector. In March 2015 the Government launched a £20 million scheme to support the roll-out of ultra-low-emission taxis across the UK. A further £25 million was set aside specifically for the Greater London area, to help taxi drivers cover the cost of  upgrading to a greener vehicle. Our aim is for almost every car and van to be a zero-emission vehicle by 2050. The transition to ultra-low-emission taxis is especially important to help improve air quality in our towns and cities.
The hon. Gentleman made specific points about working across areas, and I would like to address those now. The issue involves taxis and private hire vehicles licensed in one area working in another. I appreciate the concern here, but while standards vary between authorities, all taxis and private hire vehicles and their drivers should have been licensed by their home authority, thereby ensuring that the driver is a fit and proper person and that the vehicle is safe.
Local licensing authorities have a duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or PHV licence is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. The term “fit and proper” is not defined in legislation, but the procedure for assessing a driver’s fitness will typically involve criminal record and medical checks. In an instance where a driver commits an offence in a jurisdiction in which he is not registered, the local authority where the offence was committed can prosecute.
The points raised about protecting more vulnerable users are incredibly important in this regard. Some of the cases we have seen in different parts of the country are shocking. I therefore take this opportunity to address the issue of child sexual exploitation related to the taxi and private hire vehicle industry. Let me start by reiterating the Government’s commitment to eradicating the risk to children and vulnerable people from taxi and minicab drivers who seek to abuse their position of trust. I would also like to make it clear that local authorities are responsible for background and safety checks on all employees, including drivers, who work with children and vulnerable people. They have a duty of care to ensure that young people are protected.
The Government expect those who exercise licensing functions routinely to use the powers available to them to keep young people safe. We encourage all local authorities to carry out an enhanced criminal record check on everyone who applies to drive taxis and minicabs. We want to ensure that our licensing arrangements provide the strongest possible protection to children and vulnerable people. We are drawing on lessons learnt in Oxfordshire, Rotherham and other places. I know that there is currently a very topical issue in Lancashire in a neighbouring authority. We are drawing on these lessons to reform and strengthen the law. I have been meeting Home Office Ministers and will continue to work on this.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Law Commission. The Law Commission undertook a very comprehensive review and published its final report, which contained recommendations for a modern and simplified structure. The legislation that governs this industry goes back hundreds of years and is convoluted. The Law Commission’s report provided not only crucial analysis of the problems posed by the current law but solutions designed to make a difference to the travelling public  and to those who work in the industry, either from a driving or a licensing perspective. As a Government, we are considering the Law Commission’s recommendations. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about getting a move on with this. That is very timely, as we are working on it. I cannot yet give him a date for when the scrutiny will be complete. We will respond as soon as we can, and I recognise the requirement to do so.
The hon. Gentleman raised other points that I will mention briefly. I am happy to take ideas from all sides as to how we can improve the service, but it might be quite restrictive to operate only within a council area—for example, in the airport taxi service market. There are some difficulties there. However, I am happy to consider all sorts of interesting ideas.

Andrew Gwynne: Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Jones: It will have to be very speedy.

Andrew Gwynne: One of the benefits of an area such as Greater Manchester is that it is a big city region, so perhaps we could have a specific regulatory framework for Greater Manchester taxis.

Andrew Jones: I am happy for local authorities to work together to set high standards in their areas, and there is nothing stopping them from doing so. We should all be seeking to raise standards.
The issue of Rossendale’s performance has been raised. I suggest that I write to Rossendale to highlight the concerns that Members have expressed and make sure that it is aware of them. There are quite significant differences between the fees charged in Rossendale for a licence and those charged in Greater Manchester. That might reflect the different standards. It might also reflect the bulk purchasing that Rossendale may be able to do because it processes so many applications. In any case, I will raise the issues with Rossendale and come back to the hon. Gentleman when I get its reply.
The Government are fully aware of the changes and challenges affecting the taxi and private hire vehicle industry across the country, including in and around Denton and Reddish. There are the challenges not only of new technology and increased competition but of the need to ensure that vehicles play their part in improving air quality and accessibility. I believe the reputation of the British taxi trade to be high, and the quality of service it can offer means that it should be well placed to continue to compete in this changing market and have a strong and healthy future. Taxis are an important part of the transport mix in all areas. It is now our responsibility to make sure that they have the regulatory regime among local councils to ensure that they can continue to ply their trade profitably, but securely, for the people whom they serve.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.